Ron Paul in 2008!

[Minerva_Zombi]

www.ronpaul2008.com

[Terran]

If he doesnt get a republican nomination I hope he still runs as an independent or as a libertarian....I plan on voting for him

[bassman]

when I first glanced at the title for this thread, I saw "Ru Paul in 2008!":lol:

Now that's one i would get behind...

[AcesandEights]

I like Ron Paul a lot and am considering devoting some time volunteering to his campaign. He speaks his mind and goes against the grain on a lot of important issues.

[Minerva_Zombi]

He has genuine intellegence and really knows his ****. He doesn't drop the rediculous right wing one liners like "They'll follow us home" or "We're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here". That **** makes me sick. Its stupidity at its finest. Hes for ending the war, changing foreign policy, Ending the IRS, end the CIA, etc. I mean... this guy has a real plan for the future of America. And that is EXACTLY what we need after the giant cluster-**** that is the Bush Administration.

[acealive1]

this years ralph nader......

[thxleo]

Ron Paul has NO chance. And even if he gets close, he'll never live down blaming the U.S. for 9/11 during one of the Republican debates this year. Those words will haunt him...Giuliani will make sure of that.

[Terran]

He has enough support though that if he runs independent as a republican or as a libertarian that he will essentially steal thousands of otherwise republican votes....which in turn will change some of policies in future canidates........Its one of the ways that voting for third parties actually makes your vote count more than voting for a canidate that might win....

[rightwing401]

Ron Paul doesn't have a chance at winning. So says every major media outlet. And we all know that they can't possibly be wrong. Regardless of what any of those news networks say, I'm casting my vote behind this man. If given the choice between a Democrate who's eager to go to war with Iran, and a Republican who's ready and willing to bomb Iran, or a little known Rebublican who actually talks some sense, I know who I'm backing.
A waste of time, of course, since every news network says that Ron Paul only has two percent of the support of the American public, and like I said earlier, they're never wrong.:rolleyes:

My dad told me that I was wasting my time by backing this man because he doesn't have a chance either. My reply was simply this, "Why, because a box told you so?"

[capncnut]

My dad told me that I was wasting my time by backing this man because he doesn't have a chance either. My reply was simply this, "Why, because a box told you so?"
Good for you. I hate media manipulation...

[thxleo]

Ron Paul doesn't have a chance at winning. So says every major media outlet. And we all know that they can't possibly be wrong. Regardless of what any of those news networks say, I'm casting my vote behind this man. If given the choice between a Democrate who's eager to go to war with Iran, and a Republican who's ready and willing to bomb Iran, or a little known Rebublican who actually talks some sense, I know who I'm backing.
A waste of time, of course, since every news network says that Ron Paul only has two percent of the support of the American public, and like I said earlier, they're never wrong.:rolleyes:

My dad told me that I was wasting my time by backing this man because he doesn't have a chance either. My reply was simply this, "Why, because a box told you so?"


When people vote for candidates like Ron Paul, they ensure that a Democrat will be put in office. Maybe you are too young to remember Ross Perot, but he helped Bill Clinton win during his first Preisdential run. Ralph Nader is another one of these types.
Your Dad was right that you are wasting your time. You are not wasting your vote though. It's actually a vote for the Democratic candidate.

[EvilNed]

When people vote for candidates like Ron Paul, they ensure that a Democrat will be put in office. Maybe you are too young to remember Ross Perot, but he helped Bill Clinton win during his first Preisdential run. Ralph Nader is another one of these types.
Your Dad was right that you are wasting your time. You are not wasting your vote though. It's actually a vote for the Democratic candidate.

I love how you essentially define free will as "Vote Black or White".

[zombie04]

When people vote for candidates like Ron Paul, they ensure that a Democrat will be put in office. Maybe you are too young to remember Ross Perot, but he helped Bill Clinton win during his first Preisdential run. Ralph Nader is another one of these types.
Your Dad was right that you are wasting your time. You are not wasting your vote though. It's actually a vote for the Democratic candidate.

I don't see it that way since right now Ron Paul is only running in a primary. It's basically impossible to throw your vote away in a primary unless you vote for somebody like Tom Tancredo or most of the Democrats. And as far as not throwing your vote away by voting for the Dem, I'd beg to differ on that.

[thxleo]

I love how you essentially define free will as "Vote Black or White".

The truth is the truth. Sorry if you don't agree. Actually, I'm not sorry at all.

[EvilNed]

The truth is the truth. Sorry if you don't agree. Actually, I'm not sorry at all.

The truth according to you, that is. Which means: It's not the truth at all. It's more of an opinion, actually.

[thxleo]

The truth according to you, that is. Which means: It's not the truth at all. It's more of an opinion, actually.

The truth. My opinion. What's the difference?
BTW, this was a sarcastic reply. I didn't want to confuse EvilNed anymore than he already is. Sorry.

[Purge]

Ron Paul, the man who could restore the Constitution as well as my faith in the Republican party--no small feat, after 7 years of bullsh*t.

[Terran]

When people vote for candidates like Ron Paul, they ensure that a Democrat will be put in office. Maybe you are too young to remember Ross Perot, but he helped Bill Clinton win during his first Preisdential run. Ralph Nader is another one of these types.
Your Dad was right that you are wasting your time. You are not wasting your vote though. It's actually a vote for the Democratic candidate.

The idea is that if enough people vote for Ron Paul and that these votes are taken from other "Republicans" canidates that maybe future running Republicans will adopt some similiar policies that caused them to lose votes to canidates like Ron Paul......So that by supporting third party canidates your vote actually counts for more because canidates may alter policies to win over these voters in future elections...

I used Quotes around "Republicans" because modern day republicans can hardly be considered republicans anymore (accept Ron Paul but he used to be a Libertarian) ....Libertarians are closer to what real republicans used to be....


Ron Paul, the man who could restore the Constitution as well as my faith in the Republican party--no small feat, after 7 years of bullsh*t.

Thats because he really is a Libertarian in nature and in his voting record

[Minerva_Zombi]

last month Ron Paul raised 5.1 Million dollars, trailing only Guiliani, Romney, and Thompson... and yes, media outlets are mostly bull****. so, ron paul does have a chance. as long as we don't just say "its hopeless, we don't matter". if we get out and really get behind him, get his name out, vote, etc. anything's possible.

[thxleo]

The idea is that if enough people vote for Ron Paul and that these votes are taken from other "Republicans" canidates that maybe future running Republicans will adopt some similiar policies that caused them to lose votes to canidates like Ron Paul......So that by supporting third party canidates your vote actually counts for more because canidates may alter policies to win over these voters in future elections...






Pie in the sky. A vote for a third party candidate in reality is a vote for the Democratic party.


last month Ron Paul raised 5.1 Million dollars, trailing only Guiliani, Romney, and Thompson... and yes, media outlets are mostly bull****. so, ron paul does have a chance. as long as we don't just say "its hopeless, we don't matter". if we get out and really get behind him, get his name out, vote, etc. anything's possible.

I have a question for you. If you don't believe the "media", which is filled with political experts who do nothing but follow politics, where do you get your information from? Word on the street? On an internet forum board? Where exactly do you get your information that is worth believing?

[AcesandEights]

So there can be only the two political parties and anything divergent from those only shifts power in one or the other’s direction (I’m ignoring this assertion that a vote for any third party candidate automatically equates to a vote for the Democrats, as that’s kind of an 'out of left field', unsupported, circumstantial statement)?

There isn’t even a distinction between which sort of votes are meant by this statement. Is it votes at primary elections (for out lier candidates)? Votes in presidential elections (ostensibly including write-in ballots)? Or are we talking as a rule across the board for all elections from your village dogwalker to the C. in C.?

This is the sort of all-or-nothing thinking that got America into the sh1thole situation it’s in to begin with. By this I mean, the monopolization of power in the hands of a few elite who happen to kowtow to different groups, in reality just splitting up the voting blocks to maintain status quo, whereby they can suck the system dry while affecting no positive change, aside from inflating their own networths, all the while depending less and less on input from their constituency and—at the same time—getting more and more direction from the special interest groups and corporations (foreign and domestic) who have essentially bought them.

But by all means, don’t try and affect actual change, right?

[EvilNed]

The truth. My opinion. What's the difference?
BTW, this was a sarcastic reply. I didn't want to confuse EvilNed anymore than he already is. Sorry.

Wow, you're so cool and witty.


The idea is that if enough people vote for Ron Paul and that these votes are taken from other "Republicans" canidates that maybe future running Republicans will adopt some similiar policies that caused them to lose votes to canidates like Ron Paul......So that by supporting third party canidates your vote actually counts for more because canidates may alter policies to win over these voters in future elections...

Well said, BUT:



Pie in the sky. A vote for a third party candidate in reality is a vote for the Democratic party.

You can't teach old dogs tricks, I guess. A republican will always be a republican, and republicans are ignorant.

[thxleo]

You can't teach old dogs tricks, I guess. A republican will always be a republican, and republicans are ignorant.

This sentence is so dumb on so many levels. I laughed out loud when I read it though. Deep, penetrating commentary from you sir.

[wyvern1096]

when I first glanced at the title for this thread, I saw "Ru Paul in 2008!":lol:

Now that's one i would get behind...


Very disturbing mental image.:eek::eek:

[EvilNed]

This sentence is so dumb on so many levels. I laughed out loud when I read it though.

I'm sure you did. :)

[DjfunkmasterG]

when I first glanced at the title for this thread, I saw "Ru Paul in 2008!":lol:

Now that's one i would get behind...



Don't forget the lube. :lol::D


When people vote for candidates like Ron Paul, they ensure that a Democrat will be put in office. Maybe you are too young to remember Ross Perot, but he helped Bill Clinton win during his first Preisdential run. Ralph Nader is another one of these types.
Your Dad was right that you are wasting your time. You are not wasting your vote though. It's actually a vote for the Democratic candidate.

Oh please, George Bush Sr. never had a shot in hell of being re-elected. Even if Perot wasn't in the race Clinton would have won hands down. The country was under 12 years of republican dictatorship with Reagan and Bush #1... the country had enough of his lies, his BS, and IRAQ....

Hmmmm, history repeating itself.


Here is what I find funny... All the republicans in the world could get behind every republican candidate, and a democrat will still win the white house in 2008. The republican party has embedded itself in so much BS, that the american people are tired of it.

[thxleo]

Oh please, George Bush Sr. never had a shot in hell of being re-elected. Even if Perot wasn't in the race Clinton would have won hands down. The country was under 12 years of republican dictatorship with Reagan and Bush #1... the country had enough of his lies, his BS, and IRAQ....

Hmmmm, history repeating itself.


Here is what I find funny... All the republicans in the world could get behind every republican candidate, and a democrat will still win the white house in 2008. The republican party has embedded itself in so much BS, that the american people are tired of it.

We will never know for sure DJ, because of Perot. He won nearly 20% of the popular vote during that election. Alot of political experts disagree with your statement. And your remark about Iraq is completely off base. The war lasted 6 months and the casualty rate was incredibly low. The U.S. won that war. I vividly remember, being that my hometown had 2 military bases, an extremely high level of pride and patriotism. Also, what was all the "bs" you talk about involving George Bush? The only thing he did that I remember upsetting people was raising taxes after he said he would not. You should have been fine with that. Raising taxes is something the Democratic party lives for. Seriously. When the Democrats take over the White House in the next election, which I'm sure they will, our taxes will go up. Hilary has already said she would raise taxes. Do you like paying higher taxes? I don't. Also, her husband did alot to hurt our country during his time in office. He down sized the military. Al-qaeda grew in power during his administration. The World Trade Center was bombed, the African Embassy was bombed, and the USS Cole was attacked. What did Clinton do about these things? Nothing, other than bomb an empty aspirin factory. He was too busy wooing interns with cigars. When he pulled our troops out of Somalia, Osama Bin Laden said the U.S. was a "paper tiger". That is your hero's legacy. And if your party has it's way, that is what we will become again.
The only thing you said that I agree with is that the Republicans have hurt themselves by all the "bs" they have pulled. This is true.

[Danny]

id just like to throw a "LOL" in for dj calling him "george bush #1":lol:

[Publius]

The country was under 12 years of republican dictatorship with Reagan and Bush #1... the country had enough of his lies, his BS, and IRAQ....

Wait, which reality were you living in? Iraq was the one thing Bush had going for him. Popular opinion about the economy is what did him in. And the Democrats controlled Congress almost every year of those "12 years of Republican dictatorship."

[SRP76]

Wait, which reality were you living in?

The "Bill Clinton Has Nice Hair, So Republicans Are Nazis!" reality. I've seen hundreds of people afflicted with the hallucination.

[EvilNed]

I love how republicans disregard everything Bill Clinton did because of his blowjob. Sure, he messed up Yugoslavia too. But let's look at two things:

Would you rather have a president who messes up abroad small time and has a booming economy to boot?

Or would you rather have a president who messes up abroad big time and has the ****tiest economy ever to boot?

Both George Bushes fall into the latter category. Bill Clinton falls into the former. Republicans need to get off their asses and realize that war is not cool, and if you think so you should fight it yourself and you alone.

[Publius]

Would you rather have a president who messes up abroad small time and has a booming economy to boot?

Or would you rather have a president who messes up abroad big time and has the ****tiest economy ever to boot?

Both George Bushes fall into the latter category. Bill Clinton falls into the former. Republicans need to get off their asses and realize that war is not cool, and if you think so you should fight it yourself and you alone.

You must be thinking of Jimmy Carter in the second category, not either Bush. Bush 1 had a pretty crappy economy, but was a pretty decent foreign policy president. And no rational person who knows anything about the economy can honestly describe Bush 2's as the "****tiest economy ever." So are you so biased as to be irrational, are you economically ignorant, or are you being disingenuous to make a political point?

[AcesandEights]

Yawwwwn....partisanship ;)

[EvilNed]

You must be thinking of Jimmy Carter in the second category, not either Bush. Bush 1 had a pretty crappy economy, but was a pretty decent foreign policy president. And no rational person who knows anything about the economy can honestly describe Bush 2's as the "****tiest economy ever." So are you so biased as to be irrational, are you economically ignorant, or are you being disingenuous to make a political point?

Yeah, you're right. The american economy is booming compared to when Clinton was in office. It's great.

*muffled laugh*

[Purge]

Even as a Conservative, I can admit that Clinton was an infinitely better president than the numbskull we have in office now.

[clanglee]

I have the good fortune to live in South Carolina. So instead of throwing my vote away on a democrat (who will NEVER win president in SC anyways) I can throw my vote away on someone who really deserves it!!! I'm voting for Steven Colbert all the way baby!!

[Publius]

Yeah, you're right. The american economy is booming compared to when Clinton was in office. It's great.

*muffled laugh*

Can we say "false dichotomy"? The choices aren't "****tiest economy ever" and "booming compared to when Clinton was in office." The economy was performing exceptionally well for a period during Clinton's presidency, partly due to the tech boom. The economy is doing pretty well right now, if you evaluate it objectively and not based on "do I like the guy who's president right now?"

[EvilNed]

Can we say "false dichotomy"? The choices aren't "****tiest economy ever" and "booming compared to when Clinton was in office." The economy was performing exceptionally well for a period during Clinton's presidency, partly due to the tech boom. The economy is doing pretty well right now, if you evaluate it objectively and not based on "do I like the guy who's president right now?"

The value of the dollar has not reached this low since... well, since the 30's, I imagine. If you call that a pretty "nice" economy, then I assume you learned economy in the same classroom as George Bush.

[Publius]

The value of the dollar has not reached this low since... well, since the 30's, I imagine. If you call that a pretty "nice" economy, then I assume you learned economy in the same classroom as George Bush.

That's a very simplistic view of the economy, my friend. The value of the dollar is not the only economic indicator, and a strong dollar is not an unambiguous good. A weaker dollar boosts U.S. exports and helps our trade deficit, for example, because it makes U.S. goods more attractive to foreign purchasers. That's one reason U.S. exports in 2006 were up almost 13% over 2005, and we can expect another big increase in 2007. As a comparison, the last time the dollar was this weak against the Canadian dollar was not the 1930s, but the late 1950s -- an economic boom period for the United States. But maybe you think the U.S. also had the "****tiest economy ever" in the 1950s.

If you expand your view outside the value of the dollar a little, you'll notice that unemployment and inflation are low, and productivity, the stock markets, and GDP growth are high. Despite high energy prices and the troubles in the housing market.

If all this makes you think I learned "economy" (economics) in the same classroom as George Bush, I'll take that as a compliment. Because those classrooms were, of course, at Yale University and Harvard Business School. Unfortunately, it isn't true. :)