Ron Paul, anyone?

Ron Paul certainly has my vote, but I have no illusions of him actually winning. He deviates too far from the script.

The script says if you aren't a CFR, Tri-lat or other global elitist organization puke, you don't get the blessing to be POTUS.:barf: :mad:
 
And if you don't have 50 million dollars to funnel to the media establishment for advertising, they'll declare Mitt Romney the winner of the debate instead of you.
 
overall he seems good but there are some wacky things that just don't jive like abolishing the CIA and ending birthright citizenship
 
I'm a big supporter of our intelligence efforts throughout the world. No system is perfect. But you have to admit we really screwed the pooch with our heavy-handed approach back in the Early Cold War. We were jockeying for position with the Soviets and did whatever we had to do to make sure our sphere of influence did not get smaller. And that meant meddling in Iran and in the long run getting them pissed off at us.

Was there a better way to do it? Who knows - but it still hurt us.

Birthright citizenship is a good idea been abused. We are no longer a nation who needs warm bodies to settle the frontier and work in the factories. We should be choosier now. You sneak in and have a baby here - it's a US citizen. You're here on a work visa and have a baby - it's a US citizen. Thats too easy - there needs to be more checks and balances there. Maybe I'm harsh, but thats how I see it. Lots of other countries see it the same way:

http://www.cis.org/articles/1993/back793.html

In any event - if Ron Paul were elected, there would probably be little change because it still requires all those Congress Critters to get behind him on things. It might very well turn out like Carter where he alienated too many people and got no support whatsoever.

BUT, you have to start somewhere. I'd rather have him try and fail then vote in some do-nothing (or do-worse) and wring my hands and complain about the state of the country.

It's time to take a stand and get a candidate in that has the determination to change things for the better, not just a 'go-along' guy who continues the slide towards mediocrity and apathy. I hear 'he's not electable', but I don't hear any good reason to vote for someone else besides that.
 
I would love to see this guy win. However, it will never happen with the massive amount of sheeple in this country voting for big government democrats and big government republicans.
 
He has good points and bad points. Pretty progun, fairly libertarian, doesn't like the current bs we have in the white house and gave a rather nice speech about what his views on neocons were.

However he seems obsessed with the UN is evil and trying to take over america view and wants an immediate pullout that would hurt the US greatly. He also has a bad habit of wanting to do away with the few bits of government that could be made so useful again, voted against campaign reform to stop want was pretty much bribe money and a few other things.

He probrobly make a good 19th century Democrat back when the parties were switched the other way around, though nowadays hasn't got a chance at all at winning. He not even counted in the polls.
 
hes blacklisted and the polls that do have him that arent stacked show him doing quite well.

try researching the UN
where did they get the land for the UN building?
how did the people that gave land for the UN get wealthy?
what else have they done?

try looking at what is happening in America both parties are corrupted
with wolf in sheeps clothing. republican/democrat conservative/liberal
these words are being ruined with the parasitic ilk infesting these parties.
they are more authoritarian elitist pro empire.

we need to ditch many parts of the Federal Government its super bloated every new administration has failed to remove the junk of previous administrations going back some 50+ years atleast probably stuff going back much longer.

try looking at military models of the US 2020 plan. net centric warfare.
so much data to look at. lots of think tanks and organizations.

take away the guns we might as well live in a Dictatorship. constitution means little anymore. protected rights are toast. rest of the candidates dem/rep are in the pockets of monopoly men and there organizations.
seen people drool over Fred Thompson. doubt they know anything about him.

Lobbyist,member of Council Foreign Relations. Cheney was CFR as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Dalton_Thompson

doubt you have much of a clue. big puzzle and this is land of the blind.

Ron Paul is not in anyone's pocket and no candidate can compare to him.

Republicans will lose another election if the current coarse is maintained.
just look at the results of the last election.

immediate pullout hurt? get real. we dont have secure borders.
we are not safer in fact we are closer to a Dictatorship than a Federal Republic.
we dont need to be rebuilding Iraq or Babylon for Israel's security.
there were no WMD's found and no information released on why. just incompetence,lies and a bunch of sheep that took it hook line and sinkyer myself included.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_paul

Ron Paul participated along with nine other Republican presidential candidates in the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library's 2008 Republican Presidential Candidates Debate on May 3, 2007 sponsored by MSNBC. In a six part MSNBC on-line survey[12] following the debate, Paul with over 40% came in ahead of the other candidates with the highest positives and lowest negatives of the top 4 candidates, out of approximately 70,000 votes as of May 9. According to ABC News, the conclusion of the MSNBC vote was that Ron Paul appeared to win the debate[13]. In an ABC News debate vote “WHICH REPUBLICAN CAME OUT ON TOP?”[14], Ron Paul garnered over 85%. The C-SPAN debate vote[15] had similar results with over 70 percent casting their votes for Paul. ABC News has attributed Paul's success to possible viral marketing by his supporters, noting that Paul has a "robust online presence".
Click to expand...
 
The Republican complaint about Perot was that he drew more Republican votes than Democrat votes.

Dr. Paul is running as a Republican, so it won't really hurt the Republicans if he gets Republican votes, will it?
 
However he seems obsessed with the UN is evil and trying to take over america view and wants an immediate pullout that would hurt the US greatly.
Click to expand...

I hear this a lot and yet nobody has ever shown how a US pullout from the UN as it exists today would actually hurt the US.

He also has a bad habit of wanting to do away with the few bits of government that could be made so useful again,
Click to expand...

He's primarily a Constitutionalist so the bits he wants to do away with likely don't have constitutional authority. A such it's immaterial whether some people think they "work" or not.

voted against campaign reform to stop want was pretty much bribe money and a few other things.
Click to expand...

If you mean the Incumbent Protection Act, yes, he opposed it and for good reason.

He not even counted in the polls.
Click to expand...

The fact he's not counted in the polls is a part of the establishment effort to make certain he is not electable, since he represents a good enough segment of the people that if he gets enough face time he might BECOME electable.
 
The kid becomes a citizen if one or both parents are citizens. Not simply because mom walked across the border or flew in from somewhere just to give birth. That was the scam a few years ago in some of the FSU countries. They wanted to get into the states on a tourist or student visa so they could give birth and then stay because they had to take care of their little citizen. I'm all for legal immigration, I'm against gaming the system to go to the front of the line.
 
The U.S. Constitution does not give automatic citizenship to children born in the U.S. by ILLEGAL alien mothers. If you're born in the U.S. by an illegal alien mother, you're citizenship should be that of your mothers. If your mom's a Mexican, and your born in the U.S., you should be a Mexican also. This is what Ron Paul believes, and I couldn't agree with him more.
 
:confused: ya it does. unless we don't count amendments as part of the constitution, in which case the us constitution doesn't protect our right to bear arms
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top