Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Hugo Chavez on September 04, 2011, 10:30:24 PM
-
During the 08 election I tried to bring the point up that several on the left would actually vote for Paul but was largely told that I was wrong. Repubicans would say that the only reason anyone on the left liked Ron Paul was to put a candidate up that can't win.
Ron Paul is the ONLY republican that will actually take votes from the left. None of the other republican candidates will, maybe a small amount for Romney but that's it. It becomes even more clear considering how and in what areas Obama has pissed off his own base which are areas they agree with Ron Paul on but none of the other republican candidates represent.
Must Watch Check this out!!! Glad I'm not the only one saying it this time!!! and on FOX :o
Warning: The word POOP is banned for this thread ;D
-
Is Ron Paul More Progressive Than Obama?
http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/04/28/is-ron-paul-more-progressive-than-obama/
-
Ron Paul: a Liberal Viewpoint
I am a liberal. I believe in whatever social or political solution best serves the common good, even if it means raising taxes and expanding the government. As a tree-hugger, I haven't owned a car since 1994 - I've commuted to work on foot for over a decade. Dennis Kucinich is by far my favorite living Democrat. Hell, prove to me a nation can best achieve prosperity, peace, stability, and freedom within a Communist framework and you can call me Comrade.
But I will be hanging up my Green Party affiliation in the near future in order to register as a Republican, to vote for Ron Paul in the primaries. Here's why:
Foreign Policy: Ron Paul is the strongest, most unequivocal, anti-interventionist and anti-war figure on the board right now. He'd pull us the hell out of Iraq and put an end to all the US meddling abroad that makes us the most hated nation in the world. He's in favor of monetary policies which, unlike the current system, would make it much harder for the military-industrial complex to write itself unlimited loans against America's future for its bloody adventures today. And, unlike Obama, Clinton, and all the Republicans, Paul does not kowtow to AIPAC, which is lobbying heavily for a preemptive nuclear strike on Iran.
Freedom: Ron Paul can rightfully boast to be the top defender of Constitutional American freedoms in the country. In an era where the Patriot Act, the Military Comissions Act, and any number of illegal executive orders from the White House have essentially turned the US into a totalitarian state, our freedoms need more protection than ever. There is no other candidate with a record that even comes close to Ron Paul in this area.
Finances: Ron Paul is the only candidate on the map who will act to repeal the Federal Reserve. Everyone else is too chicken-shit to touch this absolutely crucial issue. A sound monetary system, as Paul has championed for decades, would end inflation, stabilize the economy, drastically improve the national deficit, force the Federal government to better account for its spending practices… and eventually obviate the Federal Income Tax. This would mean that all the untold trillions of dollars that we have been funneling into the pockets of private (and war-financing) banks since 1913 would stay with taxpayers... the vast majority of us.
Federal Subsidies: Ron Paul is against all corporate welfare, and his voting record in Congress reflects this without exception. Ending corporate welfare, aside from being the fair thing to do, would save taxpayer money and force companies to respond to the needs of consumers rather than to artificial government incentives. In the farming industry it could also have the additional effect of allowing Mexican farmers to compete with American agri-business on a level field… and reduce the economic pressure to immigrate to the US illegally.
Free Trade: Ron Paul opposes NAFTA, GATT, CAFTA, and the WTO.
Caveats: I'm tempted to question Paul's Libertarian policies on environmental issues… but the top polluter in America is the military, which would be drastically less active under non-interventionist leadership. I do disagree with his pro-life stance on abortion… but he interprets the Constitution as not giving the federal government authority on the matter either way. I lean towards a system of medicine such as the one in France or Canada... but Paul's approach to de-regulation would make prescription drugs more affordable and alternative treatments more available (and there's the annoying fact that Paul is a medical doctor himself… he might know a little about heathcare). Then there's immigration: I'm equally uncomfortable with pretty much every side of this issue, so consider me neutral… Paul's a hard-ass on this one, and his stance is as responsible and consistent as it is unforgiving.
Paul the Person: I have my disagreements with him here and there, but this I can say: His integrity in the public sphere is beyond question. His commitment, consistency, and courage with regard to safeguarding the rights and interests of Americans is unparalleled. His positions on virtually every issue are clear, well-reasoned, and a matter of public record. He is the most intellectually rigorous and yet bullshit-free candidate on the field. There is very good reason that he is the clear favorite for President on the Internet, and the one the corporate media most seek to suppress. In terms of sheer quality, he demolishes all his Republican rivals and makes short work of virtually all the Democrats. With the possible exeption of Kucinich, Paul is the only person in the public eye I can comfortably endorse for President in this race.
Ron Paul has made me a Republican. Bugger.
http://www.dailypaul.com/948/ron-paul-a-liberal-viewpoint
-
a while back I listened to one progressive talk show host explain why progressives should not bail on the left to support Ron Paul. He took a moment to say this, because he had Ron Paul on the program several times and had he had received a very positive response from listeners, so much so that the host, I think it was Hartmann, had to make a case against Paul. I lol'd at that. Another liberal radio show, Ed Schultz, Ron Paul after a while was identified before each appearance as a favorite on the show by listeners.
Now again we have liberals who feel like they have to make a case of why progressives should not support Ron Paul: WHY WOULD THEY NEED TO DO SO? BECAUSE A LOT OF THEM ARE SUPPORTING RON PAUL!!!
"Liberalism", "Progressivism" and "Ron Paul Libertarians"
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/09/03/1013106/-Liberalism,-Progressivism-and-Ron-Paul-Libertarians
-
RON PAUL REVOLUTION: a liberal re-thinks Ron Paul
-
Ron Paul is Bill Maher's New Hero
Bill Maher "I'd Vote For Ron Paul"
-
p/u
About Me: Who I am personally is not that important. Politically I am a Progressive or if you prefer Liberal. I differ from Ron Paul in many areas, but those disagreements will mean little to nothing if the United States collapses under the empire it has built. These are the points on which I feel all progressives and/or Liberals can rally for Ron Paul.
As an addendum to my previous paragraph,since it has come up several times in the past. In terms of political philosophy I tend to fall somewhere between Social Democracy and Libertarian Socialism. I don't care much for for the national leadership of the of the two major parties, but many of the third parties seem too disorganized and bothered by infighting to mess with.
1.) An end to the unconstitutional wars of occupation and nation building that is bankrupting us.
2.) An end to the use of torture and warrant-less wire-taping, that make a mockery of our values and dose not make us safer from terrorist.
3.) An end to the imperial Presidency that uses a cult of personality to prop up corporatist puppets that are replaced every four to eight years.
4.) An atmosphere in Washington that will allow for the repealing of laws like the PATRIOT Act.
5.) An to the drug war and useless departments like the BATF, TSA, and Homeland Security.
6.) Complete transparency of the Federal Reserve and holding it accountable to Congress. (added 6/14/2011)
Other web sites:
http://progressivesforronpa...
(Not my Blog but still an awesome source bringing together progressives and liberals for Ron Paul's campaign.)
-
Why true liberals should love Ron Paul…
awesome vid in this link:
http://www.h4cblog.com/why-true-liberals-should-love-ron-paul
-
I've ran across several polls like this!!!!
Would LIBERALS (not libertarians) vote for Ron Paul?? WHY
Yes, liberals would vote for Ron Paul. 11 52.38%
No, Liberals would die rather then vote for a GOP candidate. 5 23.81%
I don't know / I am not sure. 5 23.81%
Read more: http://www.city-data.com/forum/elections/189166-would-liberals-vote-ron-paul-since.html#ixzz1X3iVEynS
-
Ron Paul Will Beat Obama in 2012
-
Jon Stewart Very Positive on Ron Paul
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/87964.html
-
Jack Cafferty: Ron Paul Deserves More Attention
-
This is a good one lol... On the view, the liberals supporting what Ron Paul says while the lone conservative attacks Ron Paul.
And these issues are even bigger today with many liberals that have turned against Obama as Obama has pretty much done what Bush did or worse. RON PAUL IS THE ONLY REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE THAT WILL SNAG A GOOD SECTION OF LIBERAL/PROGRESSIVE VOTES!!! And you won't lose republican votes, even anti-Paul republicans will vote for paul over Obama.
-
This is a good one lol... On the view, the liberals supporting what Ron Paul says while the lone conservative attacks Ron Paul.
And these issues are even bigger today with many liberals that have turned against Obama as Obama has pretty much done what Bush did or worse. RON PAUL IS THE ONLY REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE THAT WILL SNAG A GOOD SECTION OF LIBERAL/PROGRESSIVE VOTES!!! And you won't lose republican votes, even anti-Paul republicans will vote for paul over Obama.
My blood pressure went up 50 points listening to that horrible crab. I feel sorry for the man who has to stick his penis into that.
-
Once he starts slashing welfare and seeks to end ss and medicare the far left will race back to obama.
-
Once he starts slashing welfare and seeks to end ss and medicare the far left will race back to obama.
so you're saying that if them dirty libs vote for Ron Paul they will regret their vote and wish they had voted for Obama? So fucking what lol... they is no take backs after the election lol..
Besides, You're wrong about him seeking to end SS and Medicare. In this video he says he has not emphasised any of that but would like for there to be a way for young people to opt-out of those programs. He says you don't have to deal with those programs to get our financial house in order. That's not something he can do on his own anyway so even an opt-out idea would be very hard to pass if Ron Paul were president.
[ Invalid YouTube link ]
LISTEN TO WHAT LIBS ARE SAYING AFTER WATCHING THIS VIDEO:
lmka July 24th, 2011 at 3:01 pm «
Instead of hating Ron Paul, who actually is VERY MUCH on our side on many of the most important issues, what we ought to be doing is making a strong case against his libertarian economics. We need to offer our own vision to challenge him in this area. Dismissing him as a kook is about the kookiest thing we could be doing right now.
In fact, some of the fundamental points Paul makes here about the government and the economy are points any serious lefty would make. For example, he points out that most of the domestic spending is actually going to corporations, in one way or another, and that the regulation doesn’t do what it’s supposed to do, and that domestic programs in general often don’t do what they are supposedly designed to do, that most of the massive spending we do is a boondoggle, and that the biggest part of that is the military. Who on the Left can disagree with any of this? Paul states clearly and without hedging that corporatism is the problem. WHO ON THE LEFT CAN DISAGREE WITH THIS?
Paul’s points about our monetary system are also right on. Our money has almost no value, and though he doesn’t say this, what value it does have comes from its role as the global currency for trade, which in turn is almost entirely based on our military Empire. In essence we are recklessly spending devalued dollars on activities – such as military global dominance and agricultural subsidies – which are themselves counterproductive, rather than productive for our economy.
When Ron Paul says that the money for education should be cut, he’s obviously wrong. This is one area where government spending can be very very productive. It’s an area where we should spend more. Paul says that he would not cut social security and medicare, but we need to demand stronger assurances from him on that, and we need similar assurances on welfare, foodstamps and unemployment. It is right and necessary for any decent society to have a strong social safety net, ESPECIALLY in times like these. We need this EVEN IF it requires deficit spending. We need to make it clear that WHAT money gets spent on matters far more than HOW MUCH gets spent. A deficit spent on bombs destroys our society. A deficit spent on basic human needs and education and infrastructure does not. We may not need a deficit at all, but we should not fear having one, as long as the money is well spent.
We should foreground return to GlassSteagall. THIS and not deficit reduction is the key to stablizing our currency.
Paul says that he’s like to start cutting medicare and social security by allowing youngsters to opt out. Well, that’s the best way of cutting it that I’ve heard of, but it’s transparently wrong. What happens when these opt-outers get sick, or become old, and don’t have enough money, Ron? Are we supposed to then leave them to die in a ditch? Come ON, man. Think about it. It’s part of the legitimate and necessary role of government to provide basic guarantees. What we need, instead of Too Big Too Fail, is a boat of prosperity that no one gets pushed out of.
Ron Paul is no kook. Even where he is wrong, he is at least trying to address real problems, and he’s on our side on many of our most important issues, AND he has an incredibly strong national following. Now you can convince yourselves that all those people following Paul are bigots, but if that’s true, then why do they agree with him that we shouldn’t support Israel’s crimes? A lot of people in this country struggle with bigotry, including a lot of lefties, but if we would only open our damn eyes, we’d see that a groundswell of demand for a better society is happening. We are letting our ancient prejudices get in our own way.
freesociety July 24th, 2011 at 6:08 pm «
Ron Paul is the only honest man with guts left in all of Washington, D.C., and in truth he is far more sympathetic to the plight of the middle-class and the poor than OBOMBA will ever be. It is time for us all to recognize that.
Look I’m a progressive, but OBOMBA has been the most Reich-Wing, Warmongering-Neocon, anti-FDR, pro-Wall-Street, pro-Corporate, anti-progressive, anti-Main-Street, anti-Civil-Liberties U.S. President in the entire history of the Democratic Party. I can no longer support him.
He, and his carefully chosen circle of corrupt Corporate advisors and War-Hawks, have displayed open contempt and hatred in public for “The Left“.
And he’s not ending any of the Wars, he’s got 5-WARS going on simultaneously on his watch (much more than Bush) — even though the Democratic Party won the Elections way back in 2006 on the platform of “ending the Wars“. And remember that George Bush by himsef could never have cut Social Security because the Democratic Party resistence would have been too great. But Obama can and will. That’s his agenda.
So let’s get serious here. It is time to totally and completely reject, repudiate, and oppose this man. He is not one of us, and he never will be.
But what’s the alternative you ask?
Well, actually there is one honest man running for President, and while I don’t agree with each and every position of his — Ron Paul is outstanding on many of the real big issues (Stopping the Wars & Occupations, Stopping the corrupt Bank Bailouts looting, Stopping Corporate-Subsidies, Stopping NAFTA/GATT/FTAA, Restoring our Civil Liberties and The Bill of Rights, Legalizing Drugs, stablizing the U.S. Dollar before it becomes worthless, etc.), and he would represent a leap frog improvement and a transformational improvement over OBOMBA or any of the GOP-Establishment hacks.
He would also bring honest political debate back to the public square, and unlike all the others — his career shows that he cannot be bought-off and he would not be a just puppet for the Central Bank Monopoly, Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan, War Profiteers, the War Establishment, and the global Empire seekers.
And Ron Paul — unlike OBOMBA actually has respect for “The Left“, and has worked side-by-side on issues (Auditing the Fed, Cutting Military Funding) with genuine progressives like Bernie Sanders, Dennis Kucinich, Ralph Nader, Alan Grayson, Barney Frank, and others.
For people who (mistakenly) think Ron Paul is just “another Republican”, I offer these video links below. Watch them first before you make up your mind, and you will then begin to realize that Ron Paul is really an honest and principled man, who has the guts and political courage to take on the War Establishment, the crooked Central Bank Monopoly, Wall-Street and the big banks. We need that.
Four more years of multiple Wars will totally doom Social Secruity & Medicare, and Barry Obama is perfectly happy with that. Obama wants his Wars and Police-State, and he would sooner give Bush a medal-of-honor (he already did that for his crooked CIA father) than repudiate his horrifying and corrupt Foreign Policies.
So Ron Paul in 2012 is the only path to an actual positive change and a return to an honest dialog in this (otherwise hopeless) Country.
Watch these videos below, and then you’ll understand:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Here’s an article which also sums up the choice that is facing us:
http://dissidentvoice.org/2011/04/ron-paul-a-lesser-evil/
Ron Paul 2012.
Help him win the Primaries in 2011-2012 now, and change the whole dialog in this Country.
athena1 July 25th, 2011 at 12:28 am «
Honest question for fellow progressives:
How would Ron Paul be worse for the country than Obama?
I know Ron Paul is almost definitely a racist, and that he holds genuinely kooky ideas about the gold standard, etc. But how could he be worse than Obama for the country, and the world, if he were president?
Looking at it another way, who would be worse: Bush or Ron Paul? Because I absolutely do believe that Obama has actually been more of a neocon devil than even Bush.
-
READ THOSE COMMENTS ABOVE.
I have an excellent point. As you yourself 333386 have pointed out, a good portion of the left feels absolutely betrayed by Obama and those people as you've pointed out don't want to vote for him. But if you put Obama up against someone like Perry or Bachmann, many of them are going to vote for Obama because they really HATE everything about Perry, Bachmann, Palin etc.
Would libs vote for Palin? NO
Would libs vote for Bachmann? Hell NO
Would libs vote for Perry? HELL NO
Would libs vote for Romney? a few
Would libs vote for Ron Paul? YES, OBVIOUSLY I'VE SHOWN THAT A GREAT MANY LIBS ARE PISSED OFF ENOUGH TO DO JUST THAT TO OBAMA BECAUSE RON PAUL MATCHES SOME OF THEIR MOST IMPORTANT ISSUES.
Your sure bet to beating Obama is Ron Paul because of this!!!. Obama supporters KNOW ABOUT THIS AND FEAR IT SO MUCH THEY ARE WRITING ARTICLES TRYING TO EXPLAIN WHY THE LEFT SHOULD NOT SUPPORT RON PAUL. Why are they writing about it? Because liberals ARE bailing on Obama to support Ron Paul!!!!! They're afraid of this because it's happening!!!!
-
so you're saying that if them dirty libs vote for Ron Paul they will regret their vote and wish they had voted for Obama? So fucking what lol... they is no take backs after the election lol..
Besides, You're wrong about him seeking to end SS and Medicare. In this video he says he has not emphasised any of that but would like for there to be a way for young people to opt-out of those programs. He says you don't have to deal with those programs to get our financial house in order. That's not something he can do on his own anyway so even an opt-out idea would be very hard to pass if Ron Paul were president.
People don't like looking at the finer details of his stuff Hugo.
-
People don't like looking at the finer details of his stuff Hugo.
I'm not talking about that in this thread. This thread is only to show that Ron Paul will get a significant chunk of progressive votes that otherwise would go to Obama. I'm only pointing out that the evidence shows a great many progressives are pissed off enough at Obama and that Ron Paul matches them on some of their most important issues. The post you quoted are posts made by liberals saying exactly that!!! And it's all over the internet and progressive radio. These guys will vote for Paul even though they disagree with him on other issues. But they will not vote for people like bachmann or Perry. That's the point of this thread, that Ron Paul can win because of this and even has a better chance than someone like Bachmann, Perry or even Romney.
-
Come on, when the left is saying stuff like this and pointing to Ron Paul, it has great importance to this election:
"Look I’m a progressive, but OBOMBA has been the most Reich-Wing, Warmongering-Neocon, anti-FDR, pro-Wall-Street, pro-Corporate, anti-progressive, anti-Main-Street, anti-Civil-Liberties U.S. President in the entire history of the Democratic Party. I can no longer support him."
-
I'm not talking about that in this thread. This thread is only to show that Ron Paul will get a significant chunk of progressive votes that otherwise would go to Obama. I'm only pointing out that the evidence shows a great many progressives are pissed off enough at Obama and that Ron Paul matches them on some of their most important issues. The post you quoted are posts made by liberals saying exactly that!!! And it's all over the internet and progressive radio. These guys will vote for Paul even though they disagree with him on other issues. But they will not vote for people like bachmann or Perry. That's the point of this thread, that Ron Paul can win because of this and even has a better chance than someone like Bachmann, Perry or even Romney.
I am not so sure. Most liberals I know don't like his fiscal ideas and lots of other stuff but maybe you are right?
-
Come on, when the left is saying stuff like this and pointing to Ron Paul, it has great importance to this election:
"Look I’m a progressive, but OBOMBA has been the most Reich-Wing, Warmongering-Neocon, anti-FDR, pro-Wall-Street, pro-Corporate, anti-progressive, anti-Main-Street, anti-Civil-Liberties U.S. President in the entire history of the Democratic Party. I can no longer support him."
That's one guy but who knows? Maybe there are more of them.
-
Dude, it's not just one guy, this whole entire thread is showing where there is quite a bit of support for Ron Paul. Please read the thread. This is all from Liberal sources...
I'll freaking post more:
“I'm a progressive, but I like Ron Paul. He's a common sense guy like me. Obviously I don't agree with everything he believes, but he is the best guy to restore the progressive agenda.
He has the personal integrity to resist the dark forces in government.
He will end the wars and bring all our troops home from all around the world and save about $400 b/yr
He will end the drug war which will generate $100 b/yr.
He will get Israel out of our public affairs and shut off their intelligence gathering and influence.
He will negotiate peace with Muslim countries and eliminate the terror threat.
He will refocus American industry away from gimmicks and towards excellence.
He will decentralize government. I agree that the role of the central government should be limited. Things like environmental and business regulation do need to be centralized.
He has never said that he is the final law. He respects that America belongs to American's and thus we decide the direction of the country. I actually believe that we have a better shot at national healthcare with Paul than any other.
He respects the constitution. We the people are the government. He's basically saying that if we believe in something than make it happen through amendments to the constitution.
He is the best choice for progressives and conservatives. No more secret forces (neo-cons) running the government.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/trisailer/ron-paul-elections_b_939004_105952595.html
-
Dude, it's not just one guy, this whole entire thread is showing where there is quite a bit of support for Ron Paul. Please read the thread. This is all from Liberal sources...
I'll freaking post more:
“I'm a progressive, but I like Ron Paul. He's a common sense guy like me. Obviously I don't agree with everything he believes, but he is the best guy to restore the progressive agenda.
He has the personal integrity to resist the dark forces in government.
He will end the wars and bring all our troops home from all around the world and save about $400 b/yr
He will end the drug war which will generate $100 b/yr.
He will get Israel out of our public affairs and shut off their intelligence gathering and influence.
He will negotiate peace with Muslim countries and eliminate the terror threat.
He will refocus American industry away from gimmicks and towards excellence.
He will decentralize government. I agree that the role of the central government should be limited. Things like environmental and business regulation do need to be centralized.
He has never said that he is the final law. He respects that America belongs to American's and thus we decide the direction of the country. I actually believe that we have a better shot at national healthcare with Paul than any other.
He respects the constitution. We the people are the government. He's basically saying that if we believe in something than make it happen through amendments to the constitution.
He is the best choice for progressives and conservatives. No more secret forces (neo-cons) running the government.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/trisailer/ron-paul-elections_b_939004_105952595.html
Let's hope you are right.
-
5 Reasons Progressives Should Join the Ron Paul Revolution
There aren't many people still calling Ron Paul's ideas radical. In fact, his credibility in the eyes of many has only been fortified since his 2008 candidacy due to his consistently accurate analysis. His 2012 presidential campaign is in full swing, armed with a formidable war chest, impressive straw poll victories, and the same resonating message of peace and liberty. Yet, he has been completely ignored by the progressive media.
It almost seems as though the progressive media chooses the Republican challenger by simply reporting on the people they love to hate. They exhaustively write about Romney and Bachmann, clearly casting them as the prime targets. They use their precious news space to endlessly speculate about Sarah Palin and Rick Perry who aren't even in the race yet. And, once again, they seem to be distracting their readers with mundane mind-numbing drivel and typical wedge issues instead of real issues. But they don't have enough ink to cover Ron Paul?
Perhaps the reason they avoid discussing Ron Paul is that many progressives may find his message appealing, and you can't have that from a guy with an "R" after his name. If progressives were principled enough to cast aside labels, they would likely find Paul to be the candidate most suited to fulfill their concerns.
Here are five reasons progressives should support Ron Paul for president in 2012:
Reasons listed Here: http://www.activistpost.com/2011/07/5-reasons-progressives-should-join-ron.html
-
Let's hope you are right.
You don't have to hope I'm right, you have to hope republicans can see that I'm right. I know I'm right. It's clear that many progressives would vote for Obama but hardly any of them would vote for any of the other republican candidates. The point here is that this fact that a section of progressives would vote for Ron Paul makes HIM MORE ELECTIBLE THAN THE OTHER REPUBLICANS!!!
-
You don't have to hope I'm right, you have to hope republicans can see that I'm right. I know I'm right. It's clear that many progressives would vote for Obama but hardly any of them would vote for any of the other republican candidates. The point here is that this fact that a section of progressives would vote for Ron Paul makes HIM MORE ELECTIBLE THAN THE OTHER REPUBLICANS!!!
We'll see what happens, we'll see.
-
"Ah, hello. My name is dadank. Please don't be offended by the title, I do actually have an interesting topic for you to ponder, but first, let me tell you a bit about myself. I'm progressive and Ron Paul supporter, as well as a Marijuana Activist. I like recycling and trying to save the Earth and value my health and nutrition above all else. Now, I have some few gay friends, not many, but I'm not a gay hater or a homophobe, in case you were wondering. Now, onwards..."
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread729745/pg1
I'm progressive and I'd take R. Paul over Obama
"Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems like he wants to do more for my agenda than Obama. Since kucinich won't run, I don't know who else I can trust to actually represent my views on the most important issues. Paul wants to actually end our empire and actually end the war on drugs and actually hold corporations responsible. Those are both things I think a president can really affect and things that we desperately desperately need. I'm willing to risk him throwing me to the wolves on consumer protection issues because I think congress could sufficiently balance those tendencies. my biggest worry is that he'd let the market determine environmental issues but as far as I know Obama hasn't done much there either.
Honestly, last time I really evaluated Paul was in 08. I thought he was surprisingly agreeable then but I still held out hope Obama would address the military industrial complex, war on drugs, and be much stronger on gay rights. Since he's ignored the first two and left the activists to take up the last issue I just don't see many reasons to support him over Paul. Any progressives care to tell me what I'm missing here?"
http://www.mixedmartialarts.com/mma.cfm?go=forum.posts&thread=1840515&forum=2&page=1&pc=257
And more and more just like these!!!
-
GOpers would rather swear off sodomy than watch that RPaul clip.
-
Hugo-
Fringe lunatics on right and left typically start to sound the same after a while.
Not saying RP is one of those, but on some issues he is completely off the reservation.
Conservatives outnumber libs in the country by 3 to 1. The fact that he appeals to some libs means nothing. He won't get his parties nomination so this is a dead issue.
Appealing to the left wing whackjobs is a bad thing. It hurts the base, it alienates the sure thing GOP voter and it virtually guarantees a D victory in 2012. You really think libs are going to vote Republican just because the Republican happens to be Ron Paul? They would rather have 4 more years of Osama.
-
We'll see what happens, we'll see.
It's in the hands of republican voters. I'm thinking republicans will nominated someone like Perry, Palin or Bachmann which will force the progressive left to vote for Obama when many of them really don't want to at this point.
I know I'm right that progressives are identifying with Paul on Major issues they stand for and as such are willing look past things they don't like about him especially since those things they don't like about him would be extremely hard for Ron Paul to get congress to do but the things they like about Paul, the president can have a giant effect on.
-
FACT: Conservatives hate Obama WAY MORE than they dislike Ron Paul = they will vote for Paul over Obama, that's in the bag.
FACT: Paul will take a chunk of liberal votes away from Obama where no other republican candidate can.
FACT: Ron Paul leads Obama 46 percent to 43 percent among independents.
This means if you nominate Ron Paul, you win the election. Only Ron Paul can snag people that otherwise would have voted for Obama because of the issues progressives are raising.
-
BOOM BITCHES!!!!!!!!! WATCH THIS!!!
-
Ron paul would, without a doubt, beat obama. I know a lot of ppl who loved ron paul because they hated traditional repubs. They voted obama.
-
I think some republicans on this forum are still neocon at heart. They'll go for a neocon disingenuously waving a tea party flag over the person who inspired the tea party to begin with. I mean look, Bachmann was all neoconish under Bush, they lost the election and she changed her tone overnight? Got the tea party religion lol... Hell even Bill Kristol identifies her as a fellow neocon lol...
And look at Perry... He's already getting the old group of neocons back together. Even Donald Rumsfeld is helping out.
"Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld helped organize Rick Perry's foreign policy and national security briefing in Austin last Wednesday, Rumsfeld's staff confirmed today. ...included former Rumsfeld aides Doug Feith, Daniel Fata, and William Luti, as well as the magazine's Andrew McCarthy and others ."
-
And look at Perry... He's already getting the old group of neocons back together. Even Donald Rumsfeld is helping out.
"Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld helped organize Rick Perry's foreign policy and national security briefing in Austin last Wednesday, Rumsfeld's staff confirmed today. ...included former Rumsfeld aides Doug Feith, Daniel Fata, and William Luti, as well as the magazine's Andrew McCarthy and others ."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH There's your neocon candidate. go fuck a duck if you vote perry. just jam it right in. quack.
-
:(
The Neocon Supermajority
Joe Klein:
let's assume the worst: say Iran is working on a bomb; say it acquires one in the next few years. Only Benjamin Netanyahu and assorted American neoconservatives believe - or pretend to believe - that Iran might actually use it, given Israel's overpowering ability to strike back.
McLaughlin & Associates poll from May 2009:
If Iran is able to produce a nuclear weapon, nearly eight in ten voters (79%) say it is likely that Iran will provide nuclear weapons to terrorists to attack an American city.
American Neocons: 240 million strong--and growing.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/neocon-supermajority
-
He's getting hammered from everywhere but what these tools don't understand is that with every mocking attack, his base grows and gets more fired up.
(http://laboratoryofthestates.org/bachmann.jpg)(http://laboratoryofthestates.org/paul.jpg)
(http://laboratoryofthestates.org/perry.jpg)(http://laboratoryofthestates.org/romney.jpg)
-
For every progressive he gets, he will lose 2 soccer sluts once the media convinces them he wants to end Dept of Ed.
The media is using Ron Paul and will turn on him and destroy him like you can't believe. He will be turned in to the crazy uncle in the attic and be lucky to break 40.
-
Of the current crop of Republicans... Ron Paul is the only one I would vote for to be honest.
-
For every progressive he gets, he will lose 2 soccer sluts once the media convinces them he wants to end Dept of Ed.
The media is using Ron Paul and will turn on him and destroy him like you can't believe. He will be turned in to the crazy uncle in the attic and be lucky to break 40.
Why do you say that? His argument against the dept. of ed. is very good. Maybe he will convince more that they are the problem and their money would be best used at the local state level. The stupid thing has only been around since 1979 and shit has sure not improved as a result.
“First, the Constitution does not authorize the Department of Education, and the founders never envisioned the federal government dictating those education policies.
Second, it is a huge bureaucracy that squanders our money. We send billions of dollars to Washington and get back less than we sent. The money would be much better off left in states and local communities rather than being squandered in Washington.
Finally, I think that the smallest level of government possible best performs education. Teachers, parents, and local community leaders should be making decisions about exactly how our children should be taught, not Washington bureaucrats.
The Department of Education has given us No Child Left Behind, massive unfunded mandates, indoctrination, and in some cases, forced medication of our children with psychotropic drugs. We should get rid of all of that and get those choices back in the hands of the people.”
LOL, look who I found talking about it: ;D
-
Yawn. I'm talking reality, not idealism. The msm loves Ron Paul when he attacks other repubs. The second me mentions the words Obama and fail, it's over.
Ron Paul will be turned into a racist, neo-confederate, radical, 911 cter, and will get crushed.
Plus, where is he going to get the money to run from?
I like Ron Paul, but he is going nowhere. And it's his own fault to be honest. His issues are my issues by and large, but how he goes about this is a destined fail. It's maddening too since he does not want to seem to change it up a bit.
Unless he changes things soon, he is going nowhere in this primary.
-
Wanting to Abolish the Department of Education Is Not Radical
As recently as 1996, the Republican party platform declared, “The Federal government has no constitutional authority to be involved in school curricula or to control jobs in the market place. This is why we will abolish the Department of Education.” Ah, bright hopes of youth.
The Department of Education was created as a straight political payoff to the teachers’ unions by Pres. Jimmy Carter (in return for their 1976 endorsement). According to the National Center for Education Statistics, DE’s original budget, in 1980, was $13.1 billion (in 2007 dollars), and it employed 450 people. By 2000, it had increased to $34.1 billion, and by 2007 it had more than doubled to $73 billion. The budget request for fiscal 2011 is $77.8 billion, and the department employs 4,800.
All of this spending has done nothing to improve American education. Between 1973 and 2004, a period in which federal spending on education more than quadrupled, mathematics scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress rose just 1 percent for American 17-year-olds. Between 1971 and 2004, reading scores remained completely flat.
Comparing educational achievement with per-pupil spending among states also calls into question the value of increasing expenditures. While high-spending Massachusetts had the nation’s highest proficiency scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress, low-spending Idaho did very well, too. South Dakota ranks 42nd in per-pupil expenditures but eighth in math performance and ninth in reading. The District of Columbia, meanwhile, with the nation’s highest per-pupil expenditures ($15,511 in 2007), scores dead last in achievement.
Like the WIC program, which was originally aimed at low-income pregnant and nursing women and babies but has expanded to cover 50 percent of American infants, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was designed to aid low-income and minority populations in 1965, but has since morphed into the No Child Left Behind law, which affects every student in the country.
The Education Department has done more than waste money. Busy bureaucrats have created reams of paperwork for teachers and administrators, pushed dubious curricula, such as bilingual education, and adopted manifold extra-educational missions. The department’s website lists hundreds of programs that bear little to no relation to schooling, including the “Spinal Cord Injuries Model Systems Program,” the “Small Business Innovation Research Program,” “Protection and Advocacy of Individual Rights,” the “Predominantly Black Institutions Program,” “Life Skills for State and Local Prisoners,” “Institute for International Public Policy,” “Grants to States to Improve Management of Drug and Violence Prevention Programs,” “Grants to Reduce Alcohol Abuse,” and the “Developing Hispanic-Serving Institutions Program,” to name just a handful. No one checks. There is no accountability. There are no consequences for failure, except perhaps requests for even greater funding next year.
The Department of Education is a great, burbling vat of waste, and it is not extremist to say so.
cont... http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/229936/wanting-abolish-department-education-not-radical/mona-charen
-
Yawn. I'm talking reality, not idealism. The msm loves Ron Paul when he attacks other repubs. The second me mentions the words Obama and fail, it's over.
Ron Paul will be turned into a racist, neo-confederate, radical, 911 cter, and will get crushed.
Plus, where is he going to get the money to run from?
I like Ron Paul, but he is going nowhere. And it's his own fault to be honest. His issues are my issues by and large, but how he goes about this is a destined fail. It's maddening too since he does not want to seem to change it up a bit.
Unless he changes things soon, he is going nowhere in this primary.
you were supporting Bachmann and she said the same thing about the dept of ed.. ::) As far as those other things you mentioned, he got nailed on that stuff in the last election, most of which turned out to not be true and even the media cleared him. It's already out in the open now so why are progressives who know about that stuff still supporting him?
-
you were supporting Bachmann and she said the same thing about the dept of ed.. ::) As far as those other things you mentioned, he got nailed on that stuff in the last election, most of which turned out to not be true and even the media cleared him. It's already out in the open now so why are progressives who know about that stuff still supporting him?
I would get rid of the DOE, EPA, DHS, EEOC, DOL, ATF, DEA, Energy Dept., et al.
My point was that Ron Paul has not been attacked yet by the media like the others and once it happens, boy you ain't seen nothing like what they will do to him once he starts attacking Obama. The msm uses Paul as a patsy and a proxy to wage attacks on others in the GOP.
Btw - progressives are the biggest joke of all. They abandoned Hillary because of their one night stand with the cool black dude w rap and woke up w aids. Now these jilted lovers are looking for revenge and think they can live w rp. Maybe in some issues, sure, but the FED? LMFAO!
The entire progressive agenda relies on massive spending, debt, and loose money.
-
He is unelectable. He is too old and some of his ideas are simply too far out. I believe he advocated a "Flat Tax" at one time, which would put millions more under the poverty line.
On top of that, he does not hold any favor at all with the powerful Israeli lobbies such as AIPAC and their equally powerful Evangelical Christian allies.......many top Evangelicals serve as advisers to the President, and top Israeli officials have his ear 24/7.
On top of that, the majority of the media market, outside of Fox News, AM Talk Radio, and a few online news sources serve as nothing more than campaign mouthpieces for the Democratic Party.
Obama WILL win again...and it won't even be close.
-
I would get rid of the DOE, EPA, DHS, EEOC, DOL, ATF, DEA, Energy Dept., et al.
My point was that Ron Paul has not been attacked yet by the media like the others and once it happens, boy you ain't seen nothing like what they will do to him once he starts attacking Obama. The msm uses Paul as a patsy and a proxy to wage attacks on others in the GOP.
Btw - progressives are the biggest joke of all. They abandoned Hillary because of their one night stand with the cool black dude w rap and woke up w aids. Now these jilted lovers are looking for revenge and think they can live w rp. Maybe in some issues, sure, but the FED? LMFAO!
The entire progressive agenda relies on massive spending, debt, and loose money.
You're shitting me lol... Ron Paul hasn't been attacked by the media yet? Jesus, how in the hell have you missed the attacks on Paul? Also the thread was not created to support progressives, only to show that a faction will vote for Paul over Obama.
Why would you say that progressives are opposed to criticism of the fed? O'Really?
Kucinich: End the Fed
Go to 3:00 minute mark to hear nader agree the fed needs audited and or ended.
-
He is unelectable. He is too old and some of his ideas are simply too far out.
Who *IS* electable?
Mitt- He wrote obamacare, which everyone hates. He's a freaking weirdo, a mormon which some people hate, and flipflops worse than anyone this side of John kerry.
Bachmann - God and her hubby told her to be an undercover agent to infiltrate the IRS. When she's not crouching in bushes spying, she's lying about her husband using federal dollars to un-gay people.
Perry - Crooked as can be, served for almost a decades as a DEM, forced little girls to get HPV vaccinations, and flipflopped on many major issues in the last YEAR.
I'd say they are ALL unelectable, based upon having some serious flaws. And one of them is going to win, and will have a pretty good chance at beating obama.
Paul being old, while being a doctor, a veteran, a lifetime conservative... who says he's any less electable than a subservient religious zealout or two RINO flipflooperS?
-
Who *IS* electable?
Mitt- He wrote obamacare, which everyone hates. He's a freaking weirdo, a mormon which some people hate, and flipflops worse than anyone this side of John kerry.
Bachmann - God and her hubby told her to be an undercover agent to infiltrate the IRS. When she's not crouching in bushes spying, she's lying about her husband using federal dollars to un-gay people.
Perry - Crooked as can be, served for almost a decades as a DEM, forced little girls to get HPV vaccinations, and flipflopped on many major issues in the last YEAR.
I'd say they are ALL unelectable, based upon having some serious flaws. And one of them is going to win, and will have a pretty good chance at beating obama.
Paul being old, while being a doctor, a veteran, a lifetime conservative... who says he's any less electable than a subservient religious zealout or two RINO flipflooperS?
If all things were equal and the media treated Paul as the serious contender his straw poll numbers (with voter support from both sides) show he deserves to be, he would very likely win the 2012 presidential election. Even better, in a scenario where the number of Americans who actually show up and VOTE for Ron Paul compared to the number of Americans who SAY they would vote him is in a percentage range comparable to the average "actually do vote for" to "say will vote for" percentage range of top candidates over the last half dozen presidential elections, Ron Paul would likely win by a landslide.
However, for some reason or another, you still see so many Ron Paul "supporters" claim that they want him to win.....but won't vote for him because they don't believe he can win...which is likely due (at least in part) to the high number of "18-25 year age bracket" internet slackers who, as the first generation to be entrenched since birth in the "everyone gets a trophy, every child is a gifted genius, etc.," pussification of America, having never nurtured their inherent competitive drive are self-defeating by default and preach to each other their belief (thus making it a self-fulfilling prophecy) of how their vote doesn't matter and of how the Illuminati/NWO type "elite" run the world and decide Presidential election results, will convince themselves and anyone that will listen that Ron Paul can't win, so there's no reason to stop bitching about the government and playing video games to hike their jobless asses to the voting booth and actually register an official vote for Ron Paul as their choice for President.
I'm still holding out hope that some kind of "word-of-mouth" movement gets going where people begin lose the idea that Ron Paul isn't electable and realize that the only reason Ron Paul is unelectable is because his supporters are the people most vocal about insisting it.
I'd like to see Ron Paul win the GOP nomination, but if he doesn't and the GOP doesn't nominate a legitimate fiscal conservative in his place, I'm voting Ron Paul in 2012 even if I have to carve his name into the electronic voting machine's screen.
-
If all things were equal and the media treated Paul as the serious contender his straw poll numbers (with voter support from both sides) show he deserves to be, he would very likely win the 2012 presidential election. Even better, in a scenario where the number of Americans who actually show up and VOTE for Ron Paul compared to the number of Americans who SAY they would vote him is in a percentage range comparable to the average "actually do vote for" to "say will vote for" percentage range of top candidates over the last half dozen presidential elections, Ron Paul would likely win by a landslide.
However, for some reason or another, you still see so many Ron Paul "supporters" claim that they want him to win.....but won't vote for him because they don't believe he can win...which is likely due (at least in part) to the high number of "18-25 year age bracket" internet slackers who, as the first generation to be entrenched since birth in the "everyone gets a trophy, every child is a gifted genius, etc.," pussification of America, having never nurtured their inherent competitive drive are self-defeating by default and preach to each other their belief (thus making it a self-fulfilling prophecy) of how their vote doesn't matter and of how the Illuminati/NWO type "elite" run the world and decide Presidential election results, will convince themselves and anyone that will listen that Ron Paul can't win, so there's no reason to stop bitching about the government and playing video games to hike their jobless asses to the voting booth and actually register an official vote for Ron Paul as their choice for President.
I'm still holding out hope that some kind of "word-of-mouth" movement gets going where people begin lose the idea that Ron Paul isn't electable and realize that the only reason Ron Paul is unelectable is because his supporters are the people most vocal about insisting it.
I'd like to see Ron Paul win the GOP nomination, but if he doesn't and the GOP doesn't nominate a legitimate fiscal conservative in his place, I'm voting Ron Paul in 2012 even if I have to carve his name into the electronic voting machine's screen.
-
Ron Paul proposes, among other things, cutting $1 trillion in spending and rolling back the regulations and disasters pushed by the Downgrade regime in order to fix our economy.
Downgrade has.......after two and a half years......proposes spending $500 billion on the same shit the first $800 billion went to. It didn't fix anything then and a smaller amount won't fix anything now.
There, I just summed up why Ron Paul should beat Downgrade in two sentences.
-
IF PAUL WON THE NOMINATION. He would be the only republican who could actually snag a significant portion of the leftwing progressive vote. The republicans will vote for Paul over Obama. If Paul is able to snag the anti-war and civil liberty vote from the left, it's done in the bank. If Paul wins the nomination, he can publically move center to get those votes. If you think he won't, he's already giving indications that he will. He's already let people know that he won't go after ending programs people depend on. That's a signal that he will move to capture the vote after the nomination.
-
IF PAUL WON THE NOMINATION. He would be the only republican who could actually snag a significant portion of the leftwing progressive vote. The republicans will vote for Paul over Obama. If Paul is able to snag the anti-war and civil liberty vote from the left, it's done in the bank. If Paul wins the nomination, he can publically move center to get those votes. If you think he won't, he's already giving indications that he will. He's already let people know that he won't go after ending programs people depend on. That's a signal that he will move to capture the vote after the nomination.
The Republican doesn't need the leftwing progressive vote. They are insignifcant. The Repub nom needs the independents, which Paul will get.
Obama's numbers are abysmal with independents right now and that's what's going to cost him reelection.
-
The Republican doesn't need the leftwing progressive vote. They are insignifcant. The Repub nom needs the independents, which Paul will get.
Obama's numbers are abysmal with independents right now and that's what's going to cost him reelection.
it doesn't hurt one bit to note that Ron Paul WILL snag many progressive anti-war and pro civil liberty votes where the other republican candidates won't in the general election... I don't doubt one second this can become a close election come election day 2012... Come the general election with what will be unleashed, don't take shit for granted, it can and will become a fight. If Paul can score some on the left where the others could not, he's even better for the choice IMO...
-
NO republican is going to stay home and let obama win becuase they disagree with a lot of what ron paul says.
I highly doubt beach bum votes dem in 2012 because obama likes war more than ron paul.
but a SHITLOAD of libs and moderates will vote ron paul. I know a lot of people who are liberals, and they LOVED ron paul in 08.
-
Ron Paul Will Beat Obama in 2012
Wow. Powerfull video. I wish I could download this into everyone`s brain.
-
If all things were equal and the media treated Paul as the serious contender his straw poll numbers (with voter support from both sides) show he deserves to be, he would very likely win the 2012 presidential election. Even better, in a scenario where the number of Americans who actually show up and VOTE for Ron Paul compared to the number of Americans who SAY they would vote him is in a percentage range comparable to the average "actually do vote for" to "say will vote for" percentage range of top candidates over the last half dozen presidential elections, Ron Paul would likely win by a landslide.
However, for some reason or another, you still see so many Ron Paul "supporters" claim that they want him to win.....but won't vote for him because they don't believe he can win...which is likely due (at least in part) to the high number of "18-25 year age bracket" internet slackers who, as the first generation to be entrenched since birth in the "everyone gets a trophy, every child is a gifted genius, etc.," pussification of America, having never nurtured their inherent competitive drive are self-defeating by default and preach to each other their belief (thus making it a self-fulfilling prophecy) of how their vote doesn't matter and of how the Illuminati/NWO type "elite" run the world and decide Presidential election results, will convince themselves and anyone that will listen that Ron Paul can't win, so there's no reason to stop bitching about the government and playing video games to hike their jobless asses to the voting booth and actually register an official vote for Ron Paul as their choice for President.
I'm still holding out hope that some kind of "word-of-mouth" movement gets going where people begin lose the idea that Ron Paul isn't electable and realize that the only reason Ron Paul is unelectable is because his supporters are the people most vocal about insisting it.
I'd like to see Ron Paul win the GOP nomination, but if he doesn't and the GOP doesn't nominate a legitimate fiscal conservative in his place, I'm voting Ron Paul in 2012 even if I have to carve his name into the electronic voting machine's screen.
Well said.
-
after a lot of internal debate, I have decided to go for RP regardless of the situation.
RP is closest to my belief system and who cares who else is running?
-
after a lot of internal debate, I have decided to go for RP regardless of the situation.
RP is closest to my belief system and who cares who else is running?
beautiful words to my ears... nothing else to say but Welcome Home... ;D
-
RP or Cain> Only guys I have any respect for.
Romney is nothing more than an establishment pick who will be less damaging than Osama, but just as inept. Perry is a hot head hick, but he will be better than Osama.
I don't care who the nominee is from the GOP. They can all win. Just imagine an actual presidential debate between Osama and Cain. Osama and Romney. Osama and Newt> Osama would get his ass handed to him. Obama can't run on his record folks. Sooner or later he has to explain himself; When the time comes, he will be toast. Mark my words.
-
I don't care who the nominee is from the GOP. They can all win. Just imagine an actual presidential debate between Osama and Cain. Osama and Romney. Osama and Newt> Osama would get his ass handed to him. Obama can't run on his record folks. Sooner or later he has to explain himself; When the time comes, he will be toast. Mark my words.
I agree. The only concern I have is whether Obama will actually be forced to answer tough questions about his record. I hope there is a debate format (townhall?) that requires him to answer specific questions, with follow-up.
-
I agree. The only concern I have is whether Obama will actually be forced to answer tough questions about his record. I hope there is a debate format (townhall?) that requires him to answer specific questions, with follow-up.
I hear ya-- But regardless; I think that you and I could formulate a brutally destructive anti Obama campaign ad that uses Obama's own words to bury himself. You have to believe the GOP has a whole highlight reel of damaging footage Obama can't run or hide from. Everything from him saying he would be a one termer if unemployment didn't shrink, the shovel ready jobs flub, the lie about Osamacare reducing costs and allowing everyone to keep their coverage, Not regretting the Solyndra loan, promising Gitmo would be closed, and on and on and on-- You could fill an encyclopedia with that shit. I mean, if any GOP candidate had the mindset to win the election, he could humiliate Osama without doing anything more than a video editing hit job.
-
I hear ya-- But regardless; I think that you and I could formulate a brutally destructive anti Obama campaign ad that uses Obama's own words to bury himself. You have to believe the GOP has a whole highlight reel of damaging footage Obama can't run or hide from. Everything from him saying he would be a one termer if unemployment didn't shrink, the shovel ready jobs flub, the lie about Osamacare reducing costs and allowing everyone to keep their coverage, Not regretting the Solyndra loan, promising Gitmo would be closed, and on and on and on-- You could fill an encyclopedia with that shit. I mean, if any GOP candidate had the mindset to win the election, he could humiliate Osama without doing anything more than a video editing hit job.
True. His own words and his record will be devastating.
-
The majority of people on this board, liberal and conservatives support Ron Paul. More so than any other candidate. So that says a lot right there.
-
The majority of people on this board, liberal and conservatives support Ron Paul. More so than any other candidate. So that says a lot right there.
lol. No it doesn't. lol . . . .
-
lol. No it doesn't. lol . . . .
BB, always the stick in the mud.
-
BB, always the stick in the mud.
Always mentioning the facts that CT nuts hate to deal with. :)
-
First off, the "liberals" that support Ron Paul on here will not vote for him- they are a bunch of flip flopping pussies with their noses up Barak Husseins ass.
Secondly, while most republicans here support Paul, he is unlikely to get the nomination so it is a moot point. I can tell you this much, if he does not get the nomination, there is no shot in hell I am voting for him as a third party candidate.
Barak Hussein Osama must be stopped. People cannot lose sight of that. I am not going to squander my vote and guarantee Osama is re-elected by voting for Paul as an independent.
-
First off, the "liberals" that support Ron Paul on here will not vote for him- they are a bunch of flip flopping pussies with their noses up Barak Husseins ass.
Secondly, while most republicans here support Paul, he is unlikely to get the nomination so it is a moot point. I can tell you this much, if he does not get the nomination, there is no shot in hell I am voting for him as a third party candidate.
Barak Hussein Osama must be stopped. People cannot lose sight of that. I am not going to squander my vote and guarantee Osama is re-elected by voting for Paul as an independent.
Well said.