Ron Paul just ended his campaign

What it means Dust Monkey...is that unlike most of the other GOP candidates..Dr. Ron Paul can, and has, garnered the support of both the so called left and right. That is what a republican candidate will need if he is to win the White House.

More importantly, it shows that Dr. Paul is a unifying force and that he is a man of the people..not just the Republican party.
 
The article was a hack job. Nothing more. It was a "news" piece worthy of the worst dictatorships or communist regimes in the world.

More interesting were the RESPONSES to the article..most calling the writer out for being an idiot.
 
More interesting were the RESPONSES to the article..most calling the writer out for being an idiot.

Yes, it was most interesting. You will find that kind of behavior and response over at DU all day long. Support a loser all you want. That is your right. I am done with this thread. This thread reminds me of discussions with anti gun folks and die hard liberals.

Have a good one, and again, support who you want. I support your right to do just that.
 
I received another email from the Ron Paul campaign regarding YouTube subscribers. He's now number one. Think mindshare and grassroots. (Hopefully) we don't need no stinkin' media (or bodges).


May 20, 2007

As of 9:59 a.m. ET today, Congressman Ron Paul has the most YouTube subscribers of all presidential candidates -- Republican and Democrat.

Paul - 5,679
Obama - 5,678
Clinton - 2,998
Edwards - 2,750
Romney - 1,977
Kucinich - 1,685
Giuliani - 1,370
McCain - 1,233
Gravel - 824
Richardson - 756
Biden - 582
Hunter - 381
Dodd - 221
Huckabee - 187
Tancredo - 166
Brownback - 86
Gilmore - 40.

Ron Paul 2008 YouTube Channel
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=RonPaul2008dotcom
 

Could this be the same capitalhillblue AND the same Doug Thompson that said?:

Bush on the Constitution: "Just a goddamned piece of paper"
By DOUG THOMPSON
Dec 9, 2005, 06:39

Last month, Republican Congressional leaders filed into the Oval Office to meet with President George W. Bush and talk about renewing the controversial USA Patriot Act.

Several provisions of the act, passed in the shell shocked period immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, caused enough anger that liberal groups like the American Civil Liberties Union had joined forces with prominent conservatives like Phyllis Schlafly and Bob Barr to oppose renewal.

GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

"I don't give a goddamn," Bush retorted. "I'm the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way."

"Mr. President," one aide in the meeting said. "There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution."

"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"

I've heard from two White House sources who claim they heard from others present in the meeting that the President of the United States called the Constitution "a goddamned piece of paper."

The record shows the Bush Administration, the Constitution of the United States is little more than toilet paper stained from all the **** that this group of power-mad despots have dumped on the freedoms that "goddamned piece of paper" used to guarantee.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, while still White House counsel, wrote that the "Constitution is an outdated document."

Put aside, for a moment, political affiliation or personal beliefs. It doesn't matter if you are a Democratic, Republican or Independent. It doesn't matter if you support the invasion or Iraq or not. Despite our differences, the Constitution has stood for two centuries as the defining document of our government, the final source to determine - in the end - if something is legal or right.

Every federal official - including the President - who takes an oath of office swears to "uphold and defend" the Constitution of the United States.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says he cringes when someone calls the Constitution a "living document."

""Oh, how I hate the phrase we have-a 'living document,'" Scalia says. "We now have a Constitution that means whatever we want it to mean. The Constitution is not a living organism, for Pete's sake."

As a judge, Scalia says, "I don't have to prove that it's perfect; I just have to prove that it's better than anything else."

President Bush has proposed seven amendments to the Constitution over the last five years - a record for any modern President, including a controversial amendment to define marriage as a "union between a man and woman." Members of Congress have proposed some 11,000 amendments over the last decade, ranging from repeal of the right to bear arms to a Constitutional ban on abortion.

Scalia says the danger of tinkering with the Constitution comes from a loss of rights.

"We can take away rights just as we can grant new ones," Scalia warns. "Don't think that it's a one-way street."

And don't buy the White House hype that the USA Patriot Act is a necessary tool to fight terrorism. It is a dangerous law that infringes on the rights of every American citizen and, as one brave aide told President Bush, something that undermines the Constitution of the United States.

But why should Bush care? After all, the Constitution is just "a goddamned piece of paper."

badbob
 
Yes, it was most interesting. You will find that kind of behavior and response over at DU all day long. Support a loser all you want. That is your right. I am done with this thread. This thread reminds me of discussions with anti gun folks and die hard liberals

You will be missed, dust monkey.:rolleyes:

badbob
 
Dust Monkey's abrupt departure could be seen in one of two lights: Either he's honestly done talking about this point because those of us who support Dr. Ron Paul are honestly wrong

Or Dust Monkey has taken his toys and gone home because he knows that he's wrong but like a spoiled child that is not getting it's way, he is throwing a tantrum.

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume it's the former for his sake. But I'll not give up my support of the best candidate out there.
 
I would rather support a "loser" or "waste my vote" on a candidate that I feel is the best one for the job, than just vote for someone so I can claim I was on "the winning team"
 
Dust Monkey: Interesting Take on Mr. Paul

I read that article; apparently comments section is closed for writing though. Just a few observations I would've left there if I could still leave a comment.

"Some web sites have removed Ron Paul's name from their online polls after they caught the always small number of Paul's supporters spamming the votes by using different computers and different IP addresses to vote more than once." How did they catch it? Different IP addresses is the way to identify different people. It's not reliable, because computers can be switched, but it is the way. There is no way to know reliably if the same person used a different IP and voted again. How do I know that? Because web sites still use IP for voter's identification! If there were a better option, they'd use it, wouldn't they?

I call total, complete, unsubstantiated, and unsupported BS on this "small number of supporters" statement. "Some web sites" might've done it because they SPECULATED spam, not because they caught it. MIght've there been spammers for Paul? Just as for Guliani, or for McCain - sure. Truth is, sites could never know if there was more or less spam than from one candidate than another. If I'm wrong and they do indeed have technology to catch multiple voters - why don't they use that technology to identify voters instead of storing IP-s? Anybody cares to explain?

Oh, and one more thing... From the article, I got the impression that only those who "stand chance" of winning the GOP nomination are worthy of valuable space and bandwidth. Here is something very obvious: chances of candidates are an opinion of a beholder, not a fact. Otherwise there would be no election. Otherwise all those people you saw in debate wouldn't be running. You don't really think that all those very intelligent and highly educated men - a given, despite their rating - just do it for kicks or don't seem to grasp the simple fact that they don't stand a chance? While being totally in line with SPECULATION about "spamming", this assertion about chance in hell would lead to unpleasant conclusion should it be accurate: that winners are predetermined, that media gets to pick them, and this whole election process is a farce. I sure hope that it's not accurate.

The idea of unbiased reporting would be to give fair amount of "valuable space and bandwidth" to each candidate and let the readers/viewers/listeners draw their own conclusions. This philosophy would fall inline with the idea of election process in a democratic society. I understand that reporting is business, and don't see a problem with media outlets going out of that line and picking their darlings; as businesses they have freedom of bias which inherently affects their judgment. Where I do see a problem, in this particular case at least, that they cry wolf, or "spam", to explain situation when things don't go their way. Something about pot calling kettle black comes to mind.
 
I guess the other Republicans dont now who Eisenhower and Nixon were...lol. Both pledged to end wars in their campaigns and did so.
 
This may just be an internet rumor but I read on a couple of other forums that Ron Paul has 2 million dollars now in his campaign. If that is true, it really says something about his supporters considering he only had about $600,000 prior to last weeks debate.

I searched for quite awhile and couldn't find any source to back that up though so, like I said, it might just be another internet fable.
 
Paul used a very poor choice of words, I can understand that our ME policy can be an aggrivating factor and push people there who might be on the fence closer to Jihadism and it can make more militant those already in the F the west camp, but it is entirely possible that we can do everything right in terms of not getting involved in their squabbles and they can still attack us.

Sure, it's not smart to give offense unnecessarily, but to say conclusively that they attacked us because we're over there is speculation. Unless we can go back in time and observe an alternate timeline with us not bombing Iraq and imposing sanctions, ect, and seeing how that turned out.
 
Islamic fundamentalists were attacking our shipping in the 1780's, so Dr. Paul's notions about their motives are a bit off base.

Thomas Jefferson was a long-time opponent of paying tribute to the North African Muslim states that attacked American shipping in the Mediterranean and enslaved ship crews. He thought that waging war on their bases of operation was the only way to guarantee freedom of trade, based on France's attack on Algiers.

Ensuing events were the origin of the refrain, "... to the shores of Tripoli" in the Marine Corps Hymn.

"The only objection of note came from Hamilton. Hamilton, however, did not criticize Jefferson for using force, but rather said that Jefferson did not use nearly enough force."
 
Defending our shipping lanes from Pirates is a far cry from getting entangled in mid eastern, or anybody else's, politics, bombing their countries to make them be peaceful among each other, stationing troops over there in favor of a government we want. Tom Jefferson, Alex Hamilton, George Washington, Pat Henry, Jim Madison, Charlie Pickiney, Johnny Jay, etc. would have been shocked at United States policy since the Spanish American War in taking the Philippines, The Great War, Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait, Hati, Kosovo, Iraq, Afganistan, etc.
 
http://www.nationalledger.com/artman...72613535.shtml

Ron Paul, CIA, to Rebut Giuliani at Press Confab, May 24
Wednesday, May 23, 2007 - FreeMarketNews.com

Presidential candidate Ron Paul (R-TX) will be joined by Michael Scheuer, former head of the CIA's Bin Laden Unit, to discuss flawed American foreign policy and its implications on terrorism, security and Iraq.

The press conference will be held at 9:30AM EST on Thursday, May 24 in the National Press Club Lisagor Room.

During the "First in South" GOP debate, earlier this month, Dr. Paul stated that 50 years of interventionism in the Middle East is a significant motivating tool for radical Islamists. Dr. Paul's position, though disparaged during the debate, has since received backing from numerous individuals, including others in the GOP, administration officials and - in excerpted reports - from the 9-11 Commission itself.

In the debate, Rudy Giuliani, a presidential candidate and well-known former Republican mayor of New York, called Dr. Paul's position "absurd." Giuliani is commonly characterized as a GOP "front-runner." He is also considered well-versed in foreign policy, given his supervision of the "international city" of New York and his position as its leader during 9/11. However, he stated that he had "never heard such an explanation" as Ron Paul's.

According to a limited-circulation release, Dr. Paul and Mr. Scheuer are expected to explain why Rudy Giuliani is wrong on security and foreign policy and provide documentation about the unintended consequences of interventionism - known to many in the intelligence (and Dr. Paul as well) as "blowback."
 
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/120338.html

Ron Paul on 9/11 and Eric Dondero

David Weigel | May 22, 2007, 11:41am
Right after that Ron Paul interview session I followed Paul to ask about his encounter with 9/11 "Truth" campaigners and Eric Dondero's planned primary challenge.

Reason: What did you mean when you told the Scholars that "the [9/11] investigation is an investigation in which there were government cover-ups"?

Paul: I do think there were cover-ups, and I think it was mainly to cover up who was blamed, who's inept. See, they had the information. The FBI had an agent who was very much aware of the terrorists getting flight lessons but obviously not training to be pilots. He reported it 70 times or whatever and it was totally ignored. We were spending $40 billion a year on intelligence. It wasn't a lack of money or a lack of intelligence, it was a lack of the ability to put the intelligence together. Even the administration had been forewarned that something was coming, the CIA had been forewarned. So it was a cover up of who to blame. I see it more that way.

Reason: The position of the Student Scholars is that 9/11 was executed by the U.S. government. Do you agree or disagree with that?

Paul: I'd say there's no evidence of that.

Reason: So what did you mean when you told Student Scholars you'd be open to a new 9/11 investigation?

Paul: Well, I think the more we know about what we went on is good. But I don't think there's any evidence of [an inside job] and I don't believe that. The blame goes to bad policy. And a lot of times bad policy is well-motivated. The people who believe in a one world government are well motivated, but they disagree with me.

Reason: Your former staffer Eric Dondero is challenging you for your House seat in 2008....

Rest of the story can be found by following the link. Enjoy.
 
I find the title of this thread almost humorous now..a week after the debate Ron Paul still has a 49% approval rating while his next nearest competitor only has a 23% approval rating (Mitt Romney). According to that poll, Ron Paul also has the LOWEST disapproval rating at 26%. The next lowest is Mike Huckabee with a 42% disapproval rating.


I challenge all Paul supporters to show me a single REPUTABLE
poll that shows Paul with anything more than 5%.

By reputable I mean one of the major national polling organizations. None of this internet call in your cell phone, text your mom BS.
 
Back
Top