PDA

View Full Version : Who is Ron Paul Anyway?


HonestChieffan
08-19-2007, 07:59 AM
???

chagrin
08-19-2007, 09:17 AM
eh, don't worry about it.

Taco John
08-19-2007, 01:32 PM
This is Ron Paul:

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/IWfIhFhelm8" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed>

Jenson71
08-19-2007, 02:23 PM
Tommorow is his birthday. How are we going to celebrate?

BucEyedPea
08-19-2007, 02:48 PM
Tommorow is his birthday. How are we going to celebrate?
Got firecrackers!!!! :)

BucEyedPea
08-19-2007, 02:51 PM
???
Since your pondering something new, you outta vote for Ron Paul in the GOP primaries. Register if need be. While Bush is out saving the world, Paul's gonna try n' save America! Unless you war, war, and more war.


Really check him out...google RonPaul and check the search here.
Something new awaits you to ponder.

Cochise
08-19-2007, 04:31 PM
He is the source of fully one half of all cut and pastes in America today.

BucEyedPea
08-19-2007, 05:00 PM
He is the source of fully one half of all cut and pastes in America today.
Yup! We Constitionalists (Paulies) just love quoting that document instead of rephrasing or calling it: "Just a piece of paper." -- Dumb-b-ya!

patteeu
08-20-2007, 10:50 AM
I don't know how important this discovery is, but I just realized that Ron Paul's name is an anagram for "U No Plan" which is a pretty good summary of his neo-isolationist foreign policy. PBJ

Taco John
08-20-2007, 10:54 AM
Actually, that's what he is saying to George Bush and all of the others who favor sending troops out to die without a plan for victory.

Ron Paul would use the military in a much more effective way than George Bush. Ron Paul would fight to win the war, not satisfy government contractors.

BucEyedPea
08-20-2007, 11:11 AM
Actually, that's what he is saying to George Bush and all of the others who favor sending troops out to die without a plan for victory.

Ron Paul would use the military in a much more effective way than George Bush. If Ron Paul would fight to win the war, not satisfy government contractors.
Ron Paul is closer to the real Ronald Reagan....who helped close out the Cold War with the Soviet Union without major war and who knew that the sectarian hatreds and violence in the ME wasn't something we shouldn't get involved in.

BIG_DADDY
08-20-2007, 11:37 AM
???

No search function on your computer?

patteeu
08-20-2007, 11:55 AM
Ron Paul is closer to the real Ronald Reagan....who helped close out the Cold War with the Soviet Union without major war and who knew that the sectarian hatreds and violence in the ME wasn't something we shouldn't get involved in.

George Bush is closer to the real George Washington... who helped spread the seed of liberty to a new land despite opposition from those nostalgic for the old order and who boldly pursued his vision even when it appeared that the odds were stacked against him.

BIG_DADDY
08-20-2007, 12:08 PM
George Bush is closer to the real George Washington... who helped spread the seed of liberty to a new land despite opposition from those nostalgic for the old order and who boldly pursued his vision even when it appeared that the odds were stacked against him.

Then again Washington went to war and was all happy to come home and smoke some weed intead of sitting around trying to lock up everyone else for it.

patteeu
08-20-2007, 12:25 PM
Then again Washington went to war and was all happy to come home and smoke some weed intead of sitting around trying to lock up everyone else for it.

I doubt if GWB smokes weed when he goes home to his ranch, but I don't think enforcing our marijuana laws has been a very high priority for him. He may well have presided over some increase in enforcement, but I suspect that's more because he tolerated it than because he emphasized it as a focus of his administration. But you're probably right that that's one of the few differences between the two men. :)

Jenson71
08-20-2007, 12:27 PM
I don't know how important this discovery is, but I just realized that Ron Paul's name is an anagram for "U No Plan" which is a pretty good summary of his neo-isolationist foreign policy. PBJ

Hey, where's the "R"??

patteeu
08-20-2007, 12:32 PM
Hey, where's the "R"??

I was using the shortened form of his name, On Paul. :cuss:

Edit: Ok, how about this:

R U No Plan? Vote for Ron Paul!!!

BucEyedPea
08-20-2007, 01:21 PM
George Bush is closer to the real George Washington... who helped spread the seed of liberty to a new land despite opposition from those nostalgic for the old order and who boldly pursued his vision even when it appeared that the odds were stacked against him.
This must be why it's said true nc's are delusional:
1)Washington did not believe in wars of national liberation in foreign countries...he eschewed entangling alliances.
2) Ask the more secular Sunni's and the now persecuted Christians in Iraq if they like living under a strict Shia version of Sharia law.
3) Why is the US disarming citizens door to door when gun stores were allowed
before

Funny idea of liberty.
Yup! Sounds like forcing another nation to bow to our will if they don't put in a govt that's gonna favor us. Even if someone could knock it down later.

oldandslow
08-20-2007, 01:22 PM
George Bush is closer to the real George Washington... who helped spread the seed of liberty to a new land despite opposition from those nostalgic for the old order and who boldly pursued his vision even when it appeared that the odds were stacked against him.

You mean the George Washington that said..."It is our true policy to steer clear of entangling alliances with any portion of the foreign world..."

Patteeu, we all spin, but good God that is a reach.

Mi_chief_fan
08-20-2007, 01:24 PM
George Bush is closer to the real George Washington... who helped spread the seed of liberty to a new land despite opposition from those nostalgic for the old order and who boldly pursued his vision even when it appeared that the odds were stacked against him.

:shake:

BucEyedPea
08-20-2007, 01:29 PM
You mean the George Washington that said..."It is our true policy to steer clear of entangling alliances with any portion of the foreign world..."

Patteeu, we all spin, but good God that is a reach.

Good God you're right!
:thumb: :clap:

Cochise
08-20-2007, 01:38 PM
I really can't wait for the primaries to begin in earnest, so we can get over with all this Paul business in here.

BucEyedPea
08-20-2007, 01:41 PM
I really can't wait for the primaries to begin in earnest, so we can get over with all this Paul business in here.
Paul,Paul,Paul, Paul,Paul,Paul,Paul, Paul,Paul,Paul,Paul, Paul,Paul,Paul,Paul, Paul,Paul,Paul,Paul, Paul,Paul,Paul,Paul, Paul,Paul,Paul,Paul, Paul,Paul,Paul,Paul, Paul,Paul,Paul,Paul, Paul,Paul,Paul,Paul, Paul,Paul,Paul,Paul, Paul,Paul,Paul,Paul, Paul,Paul,Paul,Paul, Paul,Paul,Paul,Paul, Paul,Paul,Paul,Paul, Paul,Paul,Paul,Paul, Paul,Paul,Paul,Paul, Paul,Paul,Paul,Paul, Paul,Paul,Paul,Paul, Paul,Paul,Paul,Paul, Paul,Paul,Paul,Paul, Paul,Paul,Paul,Paul, Paul,Paul,Paul,Paul, Paul,Paul,Paul,Paul, Paul,Paul,Paul,Paul, Paul,Paul,Paul,Paul, Paul,Paul,Paul,Paul, Paul,Paul,Paul,Paul, Paul,Paul,Paul,Paul, Paul,Paul,Paul,Paul, Paul,Paul,Paul,Paul, Paul,Paul,Paul,Paul, Paul,Paul,Paul,Paul, Paul,Paul,Paul,Paul, Paul,Paul,Paul,Paul, Paul,Paul,Paul,Paul, Paul,Paul,Paul,Paul, Paul,Paul,Paul,Paul, Paul,Paul,Paul,Paul, Paul,Paul,Paul,Paul, Paul,Paul,Paul,Paul, Paul,Paul,Paul,Paul, Paul,Paul,Paul,Paul, Paul,Paul,Paul,Paul, Paul,Paul,Paul,Paul, Paul,Paul,Paul,Paul, Paul

o:-)

patteeu
08-20-2007, 02:03 PM
You mean the George Washington that said..."It is our true policy to steer clear of entangling alliances with any portion of the foreign world..."

Patteeu, we all spin, but good God that is a reach.

I was basing the similarity on first name. As far as I could tell, that was the basic similarity between Ron Paul, the neo-isolationist, and Ron Reagan, the Cold Warrior (and also the guy who figured out what kind of "talk" Muammar al-Gaddafi understood). :p

Cochise
08-20-2007, 02:08 PM
I was basing the similarity on first name. As far as I could tell, that was the basic similarity between Ron Paul, the neo-isolationist, and Ron Reagan, the Cold Warrior (and also the guy who figured out what kind of "talk" Muammar al-Gaddafi understood). :p

I also don't see Reagan as the kind of guy who would have stood up at a debate podium and heaped blame on ourselves for provoking our enemies and proposing that instead of confronting them around the world and standing fast, we should go away and let them do what they please.

"You sir, are no Ronald Reagan."

BucEyedPea
08-20-2007, 03:11 PM
"You sir, are no Ronald Reagan."
"Perhaps we didn't appreciate fully enough the depth of the hatred and the complexity of the problems that made the Middle East such a jungle. Perhaps the idea of a suicide car bomber committing mass murder to gain instant entry to Paradise was so foreign to our own values and consciousness that it did not create in us the concern for the Marines' safety that it should have. In the weeks immediately after the bombing, I believed the last thing that we should do was turn tail and leave. Yet the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there. If there would be some rethinking of policy before our men die, we would be a lot better off. If that policy had changed towards more of a neutral position and neutrality, those 241 Marines would be alive today."-- Ronald Reagan's Autobiography

I said Paul was CLOSER to RR; not that he was RR! :hmmm:
The Bush Doctrine is more belligerent and aggressive than the Reagan Doctrine.The other GOP candidates sir, are NO Ronald Reagans even if they try to appear so.

patteeu
08-20-2007, 03:14 PM
I said Paul was CLOSER to RR; not that he was RR! :hmmm:
The Bush Doctrine is more belligerent and aggressive than the Reagan Doctrine.The other GOP candidates sir, are NO Ronald Reagans even if they try to appear so.

Ronald Reagan was more neocon than neo-isolationist in foreign policy despite the one quote you always rely on, but on most domestic issues he was a less pure version of Ron Paul and not much like the compassionate conservative, Bush. I'll give you that much.

BucEyedPea
08-20-2007, 03:45 PM
Ronald Reagan was more neocon than neo-isolationist in foreign policy despite the one quote you always rely on, but on most domestic issues he was a less pure version of Ron Paul and not much like the compassionate conservative, Bush. I'll give you that much.
Who said he was closer to any neo-isolationist especially when there is no such thing. Cold War was far more legit than a small group of cave dwellers. I'll give you that much.

SNR
08-21-2007, 01:16 AM
I really can't wait for the primaries to begin in earnest, so we can get over with all this Paul business in here.God, I hope Ron Paul wins so I can rub it in your face every day for the next four years

ChiefaRoo
08-21-2007, 01:59 AM
Who is Ron Paul? He's the John Anderson of the 21st Century. Who's John Anderson you ask? My answer, exactly.

BucEyedPea
08-21-2007, 08:28 AM
Ten Reasons Why Ron Paul Can't Win! (http://www.lewrockwell.com/eddlem/eddlem18.html) LOL! It's tic!


8. Ron Paul is cheating by harnessing the fervor of an army of volunteers, rather than the method pursued by the other candidates Ė who must pay a huge campaign staff to get their message out. Itís not fair that Ron Paul has excited volunteers who will spend their own money to get him elected, while the other candidates have to pay lots of people salaries to work for their campaigns. So donít think that the other candidates wonít cry "foul" when they notice that most of Ron Paulís campaign contributions are "off the books" in these Meetups. Collectively, the Meetups may be spending more money than the frontrunner campaigns. I noticed this myself recently when I attended a Ron Paul Meetup in Pawtucket, Rhode Island. I got handed a wad of Ron Paul bumper stickers from a guy who printed them up himself. Others passed me self-printed fliers and lapel stickers while the whole group passed the hat to print road signs on their own. Do you really think these expenditures were sent in to the Federal Election Commission as a campaign contribution? I doubt it. "We need a campaign Ďfairness doctrineí to level the playing field," the other candidates will argue, quite possibly to great effect.

Cochise
08-21-2007, 08:37 AM
God, I hope Ron Paul wins so I can rub it in your face every day for the next four years

Well, I hope that Scrooge McDuck walks up to my house and decides to give me all his money. They both have about the same chance of happening.

I'll tell you what SNR, if Ron Paul wins even one state primary, I'll let you put a Paul ad in my signature for the rest of primary season. But if he doesn't, then you run an ad in your signature for the candidate of my choice through the election. How does that sound?

BucEyedPea
08-21-2007, 08:39 AM
Don't do it SNR! It's bad luck.

It's a conspiracy designed to harness the winds of bad luck by forcing you to predict and shame the movement.

Cochise
08-21-2007, 08:43 AM
So you aren't confident that he can even win one primary either, eh?

I would have offered a bet of some of Kansas City's fine adult beverages versus those of whatever his locale happens to be, but I didn't want to contribute to the delinquency of a minor.

BucEyedPea
08-21-2007, 08:46 AM
No, I don't even predict Patriot games even when they won their last two SB's. I have a theory about cockiness, arrogance and pride....it usually comes before a fall. Humility rokks! That and I'm superstitious in general and feel it's a jinx!

I mean look how Iraq turned out for some folks! :hmmm:

I think I'm onto something I can sell. :p

Cochise
08-21-2007, 08:51 AM
What's the matter Colonel Sanders.... chicken?

BucEyedPea
08-21-2007, 08:59 AM
No it's just not a good operating basis.

Besides calling chicken is a guy thing.

Cochise
08-21-2007, 11:18 AM
No it's just not a good operating basis.

Besides calling chicken is a guy thing.

I never expected you guys to scatter like cockroaches when I offered up a sig bet, but it was indeed humorous.

SNR
08-21-2007, 01:05 PM
So you aren't confident that he can even win one primary either, eh?

I would have offered a bet of some of Kansas City's fine adult beverages versus those of whatever his locale happens to be, but I didn't want to contribute to the delinquency of a minor.I'm almost 27 you silly fartface.

I'm not going to get involved with stupid bets like this. The odds are against Ron, but they were far worse when he declared in February. Anything can happen, and my knowledge of politics isn't great enough to risk me putting Sam Brownback in my signature.

Oh, and the "Ron will never win" argument is totally weak. The fact is he provides an honest, effective message and hope in his campaign. Thousands of people are buying this concept of liberty that this country hasn't seen for almost a century, and the fact is NOT ONE other candidate that can provide close to the same promises of freedom that Dr. Paul can provide.

Ron supporters are the most enthusiastic bunch out there. When have you ever seen the nation's youth get excited about a presidential candidate? Even with some of the cooler democrats, nobody really gave a shit. Robert Kennedy is the last one I can think of. Personally, I'd rather have the nation's youth getting excited about something that matters, like their own government. If you want to go back to college kids playing ultimate frisbee with their pants on their heads and going back to their apartments to play video games, then feel free to support Rudy vs. Hillary. Bush vs. Kerry all over again, only this time the Democrat is actually competant.

SNR
08-21-2007, 01:07 PM
Cochise must be famous for smacking down small, powerful revolutions throughout history.

Romulus: "My brother Remus, here we are on a hill, but one day, our land shall be a great and powerful nation."

Cochise: "Not gonna happen"

BucEyedPea
08-21-2007, 01:13 PM
I never expected you guys to scatter like cockroaches when I offered up a sig bet, but it was indeed humorous.
You can color it however you like, my precious, but I NEVER bet on anything incuding sports. For the exact reasons I gave.

BucEyedPea
08-21-2007, 01:16 PM
Cochise must be famous for smacking down small, powerful revolutions throughout history.

Romulus: "My brother Remus, here we are on a hill, but one day, our land shall be a great and powerful nation."

Cochise: "Not gonna happen"
ROFL That was good snr!

Cochise is the Tory redcoat supporter of King George and his descendents!

Cochise
08-21-2007, 01:18 PM
Cochise must be famous for smacking down small, powerful revolutions throughout history.

Romulus: "My brother Remus, here we are on a hill, but one day, our land shall be a great and powerful nation."

Cochise: "Not gonna happen"

This reminds me more of the Whiskey Rebellion, where when the lines were finally drawn, there weren't any rebels to be found anywhere.

SNR
08-21-2007, 01:21 PM
"Jesus Christ is my savior!"

Cochise: "That's stupid. You should follow Judaism. It's much more organized and I can guarantee you you'll NEVER be hunted down because of your beliefs."

SNR
08-21-2007, 01:26 PM
Cochise: Johan! What's crackin?

Gutenberg: Ah, Cochise, what luck! You're the first person to witness my latest invention- the printing press! Imagine the speed at which we can publish manuscript! What do you think?

Cochise: That's stupid. We have monks to do that stuff for us. Why do you have to be so different? Why can't you just follow everyone else and be an illiterate servant on an estate? The feudal system is working just fine for us!

ClevelandBronco
08-21-2007, 01:29 PM
...You should follow Judaism. It's much more organized and I can guarantee you you'll NEVER be hunted down because of your beliefs.

Unless you actually are Jesus...

Cochise
08-21-2007, 01:34 PM
Har, har. I look forward to witnessing the end of your insignificant rebellion.

patteeu
08-21-2007, 01:36 PM
Oh, and the "Ron will never win" argument is totally weak. The fact is he provides an honest, effective message and hope in his campaign. Thousands of people are buying this concept of liberty that this country hasn't seen for almost a century, and the fact is NOT ONE other candidate that can provide close to the same promises of freedom that Dr. Paul can provide.

Almost a century? The Libertarians run this message (with minor variations and usually no implications for an ongoing war) past the electorate every four years. I've listed their previous results below. Notice that in 1988, the message wasn't the only thing that was the same.

1972: John Hospers and Theodora Nathan 2,691 popular votes (0.003%); 1 electoral vote;
1976: Roger MacBride and David Bergland 173,011 popular votes (0.21%)
1980: Ed Clark and David Koch 921,299 popular votes (1.1%)
1984: David Bergland and James A. Lewis 228,705 popular votes (0.25%)
1988: Ron Paul and Andre Marrou 432,179 popular votes (0.47%)
1992: Andre Marrou and Nancy Lord 291,627 popular votes (0.28%)
1996: Harry Browne and Jo Jorgensen 485,798 popular votes (0.50%)
2000: Harry Browne and Art Olivier 384,431 popular votes (0.36%)
2004: Michael Badnarik and Richard Campagna 397,265 popular votes (0.34%)

The high water mark was 1.1% of the vote and that happened when you were in diapers. Ron Paul can consider his campaign a huge success if he actually ends up with any delegates at the Republican convention, but like Cochise suggests, his chances of winning are pretty close to nonexistant.

SNR
08-21-2007, 01:49 PM
Almost a century? The Libertarians run this message (with minor variations and usually no implications for an ongoing war) past the electorate every four years. I've listed their previous results below. Notice that in 1988, the message wasn't the only thing that was the same.

1972: John Hospers and Theodora Nathan 2,691 popular votes (0.003%); 1 electoral vote;
1976: Roger MacBride and David Bergland 173,011 popular votes (0.21%)
1980: Ed Clark and David Koch 921,299 popular votes (1.1%)
1984: David Bergland and James A. Lewis 228,705 popular votes (0.25%)
1988: Ron Paul and Andre Marrou 432,179 popular votes (0.47%)
1992: Andre Marrou and Nancy Lord 291,627 popular votes (0.28%)
1996: Harry Browne and Jo Jorgensen 485,798 popular votes (0.50%)
2000: Harry Browne and Art Olivier 384,431 popular votes (0.36%)
2004: Michael Badnarik and Richard Campagna 397,265 popular votes (0.34%)

The high water mark was 1.1% of the vote and that happened when you were in diapers. Ron Paul can consider his campaign a huge success if he actually ends up with any delegates at the Republican convention, but like Cochise suggests, his chances of winning are pretty close to nonexistant.When have the libertarians ever held a position of power in the federal government?

SNR
08-21-2007, 01:50 PM
Ten Reasons Why Ron Paul Canít Win
by Thomas R. Eddlem

It always perturbed me that the wide variety of neocon commentators on television regularly pronounce with such fury and unison that Ron Paul "canít win" but never give any reasons why he couldnít win the presidential race.

At first, I assumed that these guys would be denying he had a chance up until and including Ron Paulís inauguration day. And why shouldnít I assume that? The pundits probably donít give any reasons he canít win, I thought, because there arenít any.

Then I thought more deeply, and found that there are plenty of reasons why Ron Paul canít be elected. Here are the ten top reasons why Ron Paul canít win, in the format of David Lettermanís Top Ten List. My logic is flawless. As Bill OíReilly would say, "you canít even argue it."

10. Ron Paul is too popular among people who know where he stands. Instant polling numbers among focus groups watching the debates have his popularity at about 75 percent. But Americans donít vote for people who are that popular. Itís true that George W. Bush got a little more than 50 percent of the vote in 2004 Ė just barely Ė but that was a fluke. Bushís popularity numbers have since sunk back to the traditional 25Ė35 percent range. Before 2004, not one of the winners in the last three Presidential campaigns even got 50 percent of the vote. Dubya didnít even win a plurality of the popular vote in 2000. So itís a clear modern precedent that in order to become President, you need to be unpopular rather than widely popular. Ron Paul simply canít win if he remains that popular, and thereís no reason to believe people will begin to hate him.

9. Heís got too much money, and nowhere to spend it. Itís great that Ron Paulís official campaign is raising nearly as much money as the frontrunners. But it wonít do him any good. What would he spend it on? He doesnít need to spend it on local campaigning, because heís already got more than 700 Meetups across the country. (More on that in reason #8). Many of these Meetups are printing bumper stickers, fliers, and yard signs without money from the campaign. They are creating phone banks on their own. A few are even making their own media advertising buys. Therefore, the campaign doesnít need money for any of these things. So the massive Ron Paul campaign fundraising, while impressive, is superfluous at best. Money simply wonít help.

8. Ron Paul is cheating by harnessing the fervor of an army of volunteers, rather than the method pursued by the other candidates Ė who must pay a huge campaign staff to get their message out. Itís not fair that Ron Paul has excited volunteers who will spend their own money to get him elected, while the other candidates have to pay lots of people salaries to work for their campaigns. So donít think that the other candidates wonít cry "foul" when they notice that most of Ron Paulís campaign contributions are "off the books" in these Meetups. Collectively, the Meetups may be spending more money than the frontrunner campaigns. I noticed this myself recently when I attended a Ron Paul Meetup in Pawtucket, Rhode Island. I got handed a wad of Ron Paul bumper stickers from a guy who printed them up himself. Others passed me self-printed fliers and lapel stickers while the whole group passed the hat to print road signs on their own. Do you really think these expenditures were sent in to the Federal Election Commission as a campaign contribution? I doubt it. "We need a campaign Ďfairness doctrineí to level the playing field," the other candidates will argue, quite possibly to great effect.

7. Ron Paul tells the truth. Ron Paul has a 20-year career in Congress of always voting the way heís promised, even sometimes on positions that could hurt him politically (See reason #5 for more on this). Heís honest even when it hurts him, and thatís great. But letís face it, Americans long ago tired of electing honest presidents. They very much prefer presidents who will lie to us "for your own good." This explains why they elected George "Read my lips, no new taxes" Bush, Bill "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" Clinton, and most recently, George "Law enforcement officers need a federal judge's permission to wiretap a foreign terrorist's phone" Bush. Need I elaborate more? The American people long ago tired of honesty! Honesty just doesnít sell.

6. Heís for lower spending AND lower taxes. Most Americans want lower taxes, so Ron Paulís halfway there, but they donít want to cut spending. Americans want a candidate who talks about lower spending but actually increases spending. This explains the Bill "the era of big government is over" Clinton and George "compassionate conservative" Bush presidencies. Of course, Americans also want balanced budgets Ö and Ron Paulís philosophy would give them both lower taxes and a balanced budget. But I still think the American people would settle for another candidate who promises to enact a balanced budget precisely four years after the end of his last term Ė four years after any influence he has over spending ends.

5. Ron Paul is a man of principle. Ron Paul is known for voting against pork even for his own congressional district. He voted against the Iraq war even when the American people were backing it in polling by three-to-one margins. Heís the "1" in more 434-1 votes than all of the rest of the members of the U.S. House of Representatives put together. He doesnít take congressional pay raises or participate in the generous congressional pension system. While that might lead some people to think it would attract voters to his candidacy, it actually hurts him. Despite the fact that his campaign rallies regularly draw more supporters than any other candidate, these huge crowds have made him a very, very lonely man. Crowds are isolating psychological phenomena. Getting the biggest crowds at rallies only exaggerates the loneliness that people always have in crowds. Psychologically speaking, he canít take any more of the loneliness of those crowds. No one could. Thatís why the other candidates have limited themselves to smaller crowds of mostly salaried campaign officials and government employees.

4. Ron Paul has peaked. He wins first or second place in all of the online polls, so his expectations have been raised too high for him to win a primary. Ron Paul has already lost the expectations game, unless he can somehow pull out 274.8 percent or more of the total vote in the Iowa primary. Iím no mathematical expert, but my accountant tells me itís mathematically impossible for Ron Paul to pull in that kind of a vote.

3. Heís been against the Iraq war from the start. You might think that taking a position against the Iraq war from the start would help a candidate in a campaign where the American people oppose the war by a two-to-one margin or more. But the truth is, the American people donít want a know-it-all candidate who has demonstrated foresight. They want a dumb bumbler that they can make fun of; itís the same social phenomena that caused people to watch the old Jerry Springer show. They want a president who canít pronounce "nuclear," preferably one who physically resembles a simian.

Also, and perhaps more importantly, the troops are about to pull out a dramatic victory from Iraq. Not with the current surge, but with the post-surge surge. The fact that Ron Paul is raking in more campaign contributions from veterans than any other candidate should not be taken as a sign that the troops want out of there. The troops arenít voting with their wallets, theyíre just getting tanned, rested and ready for the final surge. The campaign contributions are a diversional maneuver designed to draw out al Qaeda fighters, and those weapons of mass destruction Sean Hannity says were secretly stored in Syria. The post-surge surge will also expose the mystery behind Area 51, end world hunger and cure male-pattern baldness. This issue will be a loser for any anti-war candidate in short order. Just wait and see.

2. Ron Paulís a medical doctor, OB/GYN, and a graduate of Duke Medical School, but not a government health care management professional. Therefore, no American could possibly take him seriously when he gives his opinion on medicine. Itís a good thing that Dr. Paul has not been given an opportunity to comment on any question about health care in any of the Presidential debates, because the other candidatesí expertise on medicine would blow him away. Itís only a matter of time before they embarrass him.

Other candidates like Mitt Romney have experience as part of a "management team" capable of delivering a "wide range of services." Ron Paul has only ensured proper health care for a few thousand individual people. The other candidates know that government policy can deliver much better health care for less cost than country doctors. Take, for example, Bostonís "Big Dig." The Big Dig, the depression of Bostonís central artery, is the largest public works project in history at $15 billion and counting. This could never have been accomplished by the private sector, and the Big Dig construction is almost finished after 10 years and going only 800 percent over budget. Itís true the Big Dig has already killed a motorist who was crushed by the falling three-ton concrete blocks used as ceiling tiles. (How could anyone possibly have foreseen such an outcome from an innovative design of precariously fastening concrete ceiling tiles?) But the truth is that we need government to bring the same cost controls and safety controls of the Big Dig to health care. Ron Paul just doesnít understand this vital macroeconomic point.

1. George Stephanopoulos says Ron Paul canít win. George Stephanopoulos may only stand nine inches tall without television camera tricks, but thatís because heís the only documented Greek Leprechaun in modern history. He therefore wields powerful clairvoyance powers that can shape the future. That explains Bill Clintonís election and reelection over the seemingly unstoppable Bob Dole. If you donít have George Stephanopoulos on your side, your cause is hopeless. Fortunately for Boston Red Sox fans, Stephanopoulos withdrew his longstanding "The Red Sox can never win the World Series" edict in October 2004.

Letís face it, the evidence against a Ron Paul victory is overwhelming. Dr. Paul will never be the "front-Ron-ner." At least, not until he takes his oath of office at his inauguration.

August 21, 2007

http://www.lewrockwell.com/eddlem/eddlem18.html

patteeu
08-21-2007, 01:56 PM
When have the libertarians ever held a position of power in the federal government?

Never, which seems pretty consistent with what Cochise is trying to tell you.

BucEyedPea
08-21-2007, 01:57 PM
Almost a century? ...
The high water mark was 1.1% of the vote and that happened when you were in diapers. Ron Paul can consider his campaign a huge success if he actually ends up with any delegates at the Republican convention, but like Cochise suggests, his chances of winning are pretty close to nonexistant.


That was ancient history. People are angrier now! Plus there's a whole new generation, the ones' what were in diapers then, who are adults now. Still, none of us claimed a certain victory for Paul. It's a matter of hope for the best. The odd thing is, why are you guys so active in promoting his demise if it's so certain he won't win? Ever think about that? :hmmm:

Maybe it's just sadism.

BucEyedPea
08-21-2007, 01:58 PM
Never, which seems to line up with what Cochise is trying to tell you.
That's why he's running as a Republican perhaps.
I think you ought to concern yourself more with a likely GOP loss and a Hitlary win.

SNR
08-21-2007, 02:04 PM
Never, which seems pretty consistent with what Cochise is trying to tell you.That's funny. Cochise thinks he's so knowledgable, but he hasn't even been paying attention, has he? Surely he knows Ron Paul is running as a republican, doesn't he?

Cochise
08-21-2007, 02:10 PM
Never, which seems pretty consistent with what Cochise is trying to tell you.

Every day it's like I'm at a Dennis Kucinich rally where he's introduced as "The next President of the United States".

patteeu
08-21-2007, 02:12 PM
Every day it's like I'm at a Dennis Kucinich rally where he's introduced as "The next President of the United States".

LMAO It sure does. BTW, did you know Ron Paul was running as a Republican? I didn't until just now. Thank goodness for ChiefsPlanet. ROFL

BucEyedPea
08-21-2007, 02:15 PM
Every day it's like I'm at a Dennis Kucinich rally where he's introduced as "The next President of the United States".
Dunno which is worse, acting like they were like a former POTUS or acting like being the next one? :o)

Cochise
08-21-2007, 02:18 PM
LMAO It sure does. BTW, did you know Ron Paul was running as a Republican? I didn't until just now. Thank goodness for ChiefsPlanet. ROFL

Actually, if it weren't for ChiefsPlanet I would be like the rest of America and not know that.

BucEyedPea
08-21-2007, 02:18 PM
HonestChieffn has an honest question about a candidate for a thread, and instead of focusing on who he is and what he stands for...the naysayers come in to skew to a cynical electibility issue.

That's it I want a Ron Paul forum!!

Just for us and those who sincerely want to know more.

Cochise
08-21-2007, 02:32 PM
HonestChieffn has an honest question about a candidate for a thread, and instead of focusing on who he is and what he stands for...the naysayers come in to skew to a cynical electibility issue.

It's not a cynical issue. It's realism. I'm one of the few calling a spade a spade here. It's for all real purposes a one issue campaign. The issue is Iraq. He's the candidate bringing the anti-war viewpoint to the Republican TV debates. He's drawing support from people who are anti-war but with too much self esteem to sign up for a Democratic candidate. Does he have other positions? Sure. Some of them I agree with. But if he weren't the anti-war Republican candidate he wouldn't be any more famous than anyone else. Nobody would know who he was.

He's got a trickle of support from people who spend a lot of time on the internet and basically, libertarians. Maybe from anti-war types who'll end up voting for the Democratic candidate, but want to create mischief among Republican candidates too. Who knows?

It's not cynical to be in touch with reality. That's all I'm saying.

That's it I want a Ron Paul forum!!

Just for us and those who sincerely want to know more.

Doesn't the Ron Paul campaign have a message board somewhere that would do nicely for this? Or a website maybe?

Logical
08-21-2007, 02:36 PM
HonestChieffn has an honest question about a candidate for a thread, and instead of focusing on who he is and what he stands for...the naysayers come in to skew to a cynical electibility issue.

That's it I want a Ron Paul forum!!

Just for us and those who sincerely want to know more.

www.ronpaul2008.com (http://www.ronpaul2008.com)

BucEyedPea
08-21-2007, 02:38 PM
:LOL:

CHIEF4EVER
08-21-2007, 02:41 PM
There was the Democratic Candidate who nobody gave a chance of winning the nomination. All throughout the runup to the Primaries he was behind. He became the nominee of the Dem Party. His name was John 'Rambo' Kerry.

Ron Paul has a chance if he can get his message out there.

BucEyedPea
08-21-2007, 02:44 PM
It's not a cynical issue. It's realism. I'm one of the few calling a spade a spade here. It's for all real purposes a one issue campaign. The issue is Iraq. He's the candidate bringing the anti-war viewpoint to the Republican TV debates. He's drawing support from people who are anti-war but with too much self esteem to sign up for a Democratic candidate. Does he have other positions? Sure. Some of them I agree with. But if he weren't the anti-war Republican candidate he wouldn't be any more famous than anyone else. Nobody would know who he was.

He's got a trickle of support from people who spend a lot of time on the internet and basically, libertarians. Maybe from anti-war types who'll end up voting for the Democratic candidate, but want to create mischief among Republican candidates too. Who knows?

It's not cynical to be in touch with reality. That's all I'm saying.
Nothing you haven't said before Cochise.

Again NO one has predicted or claimed any CERTAIN victory for Paul...it's about hope. So you're actually not being in touch with reality if you keep making this claim. We know it's a longshot. But it is cynical to harp only on the electibility issues particularly when another Chiefs fan asks who he is.


Doesn't the Ron Paul campaign have a message board somewhere that would do nicely for this? Or a website maybe?
I meant for here...for Planeteers who ask. I was also being tic.

Cochise
08-21-2007, 02:45 PM
There was the Democratic Candidate who nobody gave a chance of winning the nomination. All throughout the runup to the Primaries he was behind. He became the nominee of the Dem Party. His name was John 'Rambo' Kerry.


Howard Dean was the guy everyone was talking about, and then they actually started primary season, and it turned out that Dean's support was largely just an especially loud group of kooks.

BucEyedPea
08-21-2007, 02:49 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Dean only win one internet poll?
Pauls wins hundreds of them.

Don't forget Bush won by a narrow majority too.
That does not bode well for the GOP.

Baby Lee
08-21-2007, 02:49 PM
"Jesus Christ is my savior!"

Cochise: "That's stupid. You should follow Judaism. It's much more organized and I can guarantee you you'll NEVER be hunted down because of your beliefs."
SNR: This latest Andy Richter sitcom CAN'T miss!! :p

Cochise
08-21-2007, 03:04 PM
SNR: This latest Andy Richter sitcom CAN'T miss!! :p

The Half Hour SNR Hour

patteeu
08-21-2007, 07:04 PM
There was the Democratic Candidate who nobody gave a chance of winning the nomination. All throughout the runup to the Primaries he was behind. He became the nominee of the Dem Party. His name was John 'Rambo' Kerry.

Ron Paul has a chance if he can get his message out there.

Please. John Kerry was behind, but people weren't writing him off. He was one of the main establishment candidates running against the surprising outsider, Howard Dean. If anything, Howard Dean is a better comparison to Paul except that Howard Dean actually had a message that was within the liberal mainstream of his party.

Compared to the hill John Kerry had to climb:

http://homepage.mac.com/juggle5/travel/BRAG98/Mounds.jpg

Ron Paul is climbing a mountain:

http://www.nhcinstitute.com/images/mountain%20climber.jpg

BucEyedPea
08-21-2007, 08:19 PM
Climb every mountain,
Ford every stream,
Follow every rainbow,
'Til you find your dream

patteeu
08-21-2007, 08:26 PM
Climb every mountain,
Ford every stream,
Follow every rainbow,
'Til you find your dream

:)

If Ron Paul wins this election, I'm sure they will make a movie about it.

Logical
08-21-2007, 08:29 PM
:)

If Ron Paul wins this election, I'm sure they will make a movie about it.

Hopefully Ron Paul will know to Fjord every stream. I am pretty sure we don't want a Ford in a stream.

patteeu
08-21-2007, 08:40 PM
Nah, she got it right.

Fording a stream:

http://www.beenthere-donethat.org.uk/images/tissington01a.jpg



A fjord (College Fiord in Alaska):

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2004/1216/f/images/fiord1.gif



Of course, maybe you're right in a sense. Everything Ron Paul has to do to win this election is going to be extremely difficult. When it comes to comparing his campaign to fording a body of water, it's more apt to see that body of water as a huge fjord than as a stream. ;)

Taco John
08-21-2007, 09:18 PM
A better comparison is Clinton. He was a nobody with no visibility, and then along came Gennifer Flowers. Next thing you know, he's doing 60 minutes, and from there the momentum was unstoppable.

Clinton literally came out of nowhere. He was a governor, but a lot of these guys are that have "no shot."

The thing is, it's way too early to tell. For all we know, McCain could get hot again. All it takes is the right publicity at the right moment. The election is a long ways away.

At the very least, Ron Paul is a player. That's all he needs to be at this point.

patteeu
08-22-2007, 05:22 AM
A better comparison is Clinton. He was a nobody with no visibility, and then along came Gennifer Flowers. Next thing you know, he's doing 60 minutes, and from there the momentum was unstoppable.

Clinton literally came out of nowhere. He was a governor, but a lot of these guys are that have "no shot."

The thing is, it's way too early to tell. For all we know, McCain could get hot again. All it takes is the right publicity at the right moment. The election is a long ways away.

At the very least, Ron Paul is a player. That's all he needs to be at this point.

I agree that that's a better comparison although Clinton was a lot more willing to pander to voters than Ron Paul is. And while the election is a long way away, I just don't see how Paul can overcome the fact that there isn't much of a market for his tiny government ideas and wrt his anti-war stance, there are too many mainstream alternatives in the democrat party available.

BucEyedPea
08-22-2007, 07:53 AM
I agree that that's a better comparison although Clinton was a lot more willing to pander to voters than Ron Paul is. And while the election is a long way away, I just don't see how Paul can overcome the fact that there isn't much of a market for his tiny government ideas and wrt his anti-war stance, there are too many mainstream alternatives in the democrat party available.
Yet Reagan won on a small govt message in a landslide.
No president has come close to landslide in the 90's up to now. In fact Clinton only had a plurality iirc. Bush squeaked in. Doesn't sound like a whole lot of popularity with the winners with these stats.

As regard the wot, he's got an even bigger market for that. Something neither party has. That's not a partisan issue. It's the leadership of both partys that are opposed to the people .The Dems are selling out the anti-war crowd....all of them have nc advisors for fpóeven Obama. Just a lot of people don't know this.

HonestChieffan
08-22-2007, 08:03 AM
I did my reading. The guy is a wackjob. waste of a vote for this clown

patteeu
08-22-2007, 08:03 AM
Yet Reagan won on a small govt message in a landslide.
No president has come close to landslide in the 90's up to now. In fact Clinton only had a plurality iirc. Bush squeaked in. Doesn't sound like a whole lot of popularity with the winners with these stats.

As regard the wot, he's got an even bigger market for that. Something neither party has. That's not a partisan issue. It's the leadership of both partys that are opposed to the people .The Dems are selling out the anti-war crowd....all of them have nc advisors for fpóeven Obama. Just a lot of people don't know this.

I used the "tiny government" specifically to distinguish it from the more widely embraced (superficially at least) "small government" message of Reagan and other mainstream conservative Republicans. The two aren't really that comparable, IMO.

patteeu
08-22-2007, 08:04 AM
I did my reading. The guy is a wackjob. waste of a vote for this clown

You're gonna make a bunch of enemies around here with talk like that. LOL

BucEyedPea
08-22-2007, 08:08 AM
I used the "tiny government" specifically to distinguish it from the more widely embraced (superficially at least) "small government" message of Reagan and other mainstream conservative Republicans. The two aren't really that comparable, IMO.
Superficial to who? Certainly not the base. You must mean RINO's.
Not everybody knew his message would be superficial.

And if HonestChieffan doesn't like Paul it's fine. Not everybody can handle limited govt or know he has to ask congress for most things....except in war and fp. Besides he like Hillary now who is Bush-lite...war and socialism.

patteeu
08-22-2007, 08:23 AM
Superficial to who? Certainly not the base. You must mean RINO's.
Not everybody knew his message would be superficial.

And if HonestCheif doesn't like Paul it's fine. Not everybody can handle limited govt or know he has to ask congress for most things....except in war and fp.

The superficial comment described the attractiveness of a small government message to the general voting population. A large number of people, maybe even a substantial majority, applaud the general call for smaller government, less wasteful spending, greater government efficiency, and (especially) lower taxes. But as soon as you drill down to specifics, those majorities quickly vanish as most people decide they don't want small government at the expense of their own pet programs. It's just an unfortunate fact that Americans don't support truly smaller government when the rubber hits the road.

BucEyedPea
08-22-2007, 08:27 AM
The superficial comment described the attractiveness of a small government message to the general voting population. A large number of people, maybe even a substantial majority, applaud the general call for smaller government, less wasteful spending, greater government efficiency, and (especially) lower taxes. But as soon as you drill down to specifics, those majorities quickly vanish as most people decide they don't want small government at the expense of their own pet programs. It's just an unfortunate fact that Americans don't support truly smaller government when the rubber hits the road.
Can't say I completly disagree. It's hard to get rid of when people have become dependent on it. Just the same, it still works as a message...and if you've heard Paul's speeches he's on record as saying we can't get rid of all of it immediately...including things like Medicare. He refuses to put people out of such things if so much is being spent on war. So he does have a practical side.
I think he feels certain things have to be attended immediately though.

patteeu
08-22-2007, 08:32 AM
Can't say I completly disagree. It's hard to get rid of when people have become dependent on it. Just the same, it still works as a message...and if you've heard Paul's speeches he's on record as saying we can't get rid of all of it immediately...including things like Medicare. He refuses to put people out of such things if so much is being spent on war. So he does have a practical side.
I think he feels certain things have to be attended immediately though.

He's a SOCIALIST!!! :eek: LMAO

BucEyedPea
08-22-2007, 08:39 AM
Oh stop! I don't mean a Newtie sell-out ( often behind closed doors) practical side. Not making our bureaucrats entreprenuerial bunk. I mean he'd implement gradually but in the opposite direction beginning with the worst abuses of the welfare/warfare state. They go hand and hand.

Things like nafta, immigration, the war, inflationary policy which the people hate. Those are popular.

Cochise
08-22-2007, 08:42 AM
LMAO I'm always amazed that when one person is compared to Reagan, everyone jumps up and compares their own heroes to him, and it becomes a contest as to who is the most Reagan-like. Even the democratic candidates invoke his name during their debates.

I think it's good that being like him is still seen as a superlative.

patteeu
08-22-2007, 08:47 AM
LMAO I'm always amazed that when one person is compared to Reagan, everyone jumps up and compares their own heroes to him, and it becomes a contest as to who is the most Reagan-like. Even the democratic candidates invoke his name during their debates.

I think it's good that being like him is still seen as a superlative.

Yeah, can you imagine someday after Bill Clinton has passed away, Republicans comparing themselves to the Impeachment Kid?

Cochise
08-22-2007, 09:28 AM
Yeah, can you imagine someday after Bill Clinton has passed away, Republicans comparing themselves to the Impeachment Kid?

I think that Clinton's legacy peaked toward the end of his term. You don't even really see candidates wanting to compare themselves to him now.

HonestChieffan
08-22-2007, 09:32 AM
its called electability. The republicans suffer from a lack of a candidate who is. Dragging up some 3rd party or another wackjob who has a plethora of oddball positions and quick fixes wont move us toward defeating Hillary. That should be the only goal...keeping Obama and Hillary out of the white house.

patteeu
08-22-2007, 09:39 AM
its called electability. The republicans suffer from a lack of a candidate who is. Dragging up some 3rd party or another wackjob who has a plethora of oddball positions and quick fixes wont move us toward defeating Hillary. That should be the only goal...keeping Obama and Hillary out of the white house.

In your view, what are the post-nomination electability problems of Guiliani, Romney, and Thompson?

BucEyedPea
08-22-2007, 09:43 AM
its called electability. The republicans suffer from a lack of a candidate who is. Dragging up some 3rd party or another wackjob who has a plethora of oddball positions and quick fixes wont move us toward defeating Hillary. That should be the only goal...keeping Obama and Hillary out of the white house.
I assure you the GOP has not dragged "up some 3d party."
That was Paul and his close advisor and supporter's own decision based on the overspending, immigration/nafta and Iraq war issues that the GOP moved leftward on.

Be aware, that just as Dems have moved into the GOP, GOP'ers have moved into the libertarian party as the GOP shift further left into "compassionate conservativism" and "nation building" covered up with the label of "The War on Terror"...oh I mean the "global wot" and many other things that a Dem could run on. In fact membership is surging with former Pubs.

I'd like to know which positions you feel are "oddball" besides the most common one mentioned on is supporting a gold standard/Fed Res issues. His most popular are: Iraq occupation, immigration ( has the best plan), the Constitutiion, pork-barrel spending, taxes ( growth of govt) and debt.

Don't forget it's one branch of the govt and he'd have to ask congress for most things outside of the war,Iraq occupation and FP etc. I think he'd shake things up but wouldn't get most of it. And I do think the excesses will be brought under control.

Think about it.
Still like to hear which you consider oddball though.
Because none of the other candidates are different from Bush.
None coming up the line are either. GOP has an electibility problem period.
You must like Bush?

HonestChieffan
08-22-2007, 10:03 AM
No I voted for Bush but have never thought he was going to be much more than what we have...hes not very bright and lacks the ability to lead.

The entire federal and state political scene disappoints me. We no longer have leaders in either party who put the good of the country forst..its all baout special interests and getting reelected through total polarization. True simple bullshit that is pulling this country apart. We need to find a leader. In the meantime what I see is one demo candidtate whoi has re constructed her image and has a well run campaign and great staff...going against the repubs who lack the one clear strong candidate who can bring in the moderates and disaffected demos. All we have are these rightwing reliowackos who are ruining the party.

BucEyedPea
08-22-2007, 10:06 AM
Did you know some Dems changed their registration to be able to vote for Paul? As well as people who've never voted before and more young people?
One's whacko nut job is someone else's savior. I guess that's gonna be Hillary for you. You support the idea of Iraq, but just think it was mishandled. I say it was a mistake ever going in. Electibility= more of the same. Sorry but that's the reality.

So which stands of Paul's are whacko to you?

SNR
08-22-2007, 10:09 AM
its called electability. The republicans suffer from a lack of a candidate who is. Dragging up some 3rd party or another wackjob who has a plethora of oddball positions and quick fixes wont move us toward defeating Hillary. That should be the only goal...keeping Obama and Hillary out of the white house.Whackjob? Sure, I guess the history of the Republican party from Reagan and before is full of nothing but independant whackjobs. Goldwater, Eisenhower, Teddy Roosevelt, Taft... all of them whackjobs.

HonestChieffan
08-22-2007, 10:09 AM
I wont vote for hillary...she is frightening as is Obama and Edwards My point is we need an electable candidate..i just cannot see one who can overcome Hillarys momentum

patteeu
08-22-2007, 10:12 AM
...going against the repubs who lack the one clear strong candidate who can bring in the moderates and disaffected demos. All we have are these rightwing reliowackos who are ruining the party.

No offense intended, but I think you'd better start a thread asking who each of the front-running Republican candidates is because you don't seem to have a good bead on it.

Cochise
08-22-2007, 10:12 AM
Did you know some Dems changed their registration to be able to vote for Paul? As well as people who've never voted before and more young people?
One's whacko nut job is someone else's savior. I guess that's gonna be Hillary for you. You support the idea of Iraq, but just think it was mishandled. I say it was a mistake ever going in. Electibility= more of the same. Sorry but that's the reality.

So which stands of Paul's are whacko to you?

Young people are registering in numbers never before seen. There's a huge youth movement. We've got a boatload of cellphone voters who can't be polled. People are switching parties to vote for our guy.

Love letters from the Kerry camp, ca. 2004 :p

BucEyedPea
08-22-2007, 10:25 AM
Cochise is altering my words again...I said "some" dems. You outta run as a politician Cochise...you have the knack.

Cochise
08-22-2007, 10:42 AM
Cochise is altering my words again...I said "some" dems. You outta run as a politician Cochise...you have the knack.

My problem is only that I don't have enough notoriety... if we could get the word out, everyone would vote for me.

Taco John
08-22-2007, 11:22 AM
A note from Ron Paul's Campaign:

August 22, 2007

Not all the media are biased.* A local newspaper in New Hampshire reported on an annual GOP bbq in the town of Hollis.* It could be called "the Ron Paul show," they said, since the far bigger crowd that usual consisted mostly of our supporters.* One volunteer even rented an airplane and flew a wonderful sign around the sky.* What great, creative, self-starting people I'm meeting, at every stop, all of them united by a love of America and American freedom.

Politics is usually about division.* But this campaign is just the opposite.* Not only are our volunteers a bunch of happy warriors, but they also practice the virtues of tolerance and peace, just as they want the nation to do.

The other day, the state chairman of an opposing campaign (not in New Hampshire!), angrily tore a sign out of one of our supporter's hands and trashed it.* Different people with different beliefs might have responded differently.* But our people, though they'd been standing in the rain all day, applied the Golden Rule.* It's because of quiet heroes that I know we can change this country.

A reporter in New Hampshire told me this story about Florida:* she had seen the same three supporters working every day passing out our literature, and so decided to interview them.* She was startled to discover that one was a Republican, one was a Democrat, and one was an Independent.* But I wasn't.

Freedom brings us all together. We can all agree on leaving people alone to plan and live their own lives, rather than trying to force them to obey at the point of a gun, as runaway government does.* Instead of clawing at each other via the warfare-welfare state, people under liberty can cooperate in a unity of diversity.

There is no need to use government to threaten others who have different standards, or to be threatened by them.* Looking to our Founders, our traditions, and the Constitution, we can build, in peaceful cooperation, a free and prosperous society.

At a talk show in Nashua, New Hampshire, the host asked me about the fair tax.* Well, I agree on getting rid of the IRS, I told her, but I want to replace it with nothing, not another tax.* But let's not forget the inflation tax, I said.

This was something she had never considered, but after I talked about the depreciation of our dollar by the Federal Reserve, its creation of artificial booms and busts, and its bailouts of the big banks and Wall Street firms, to the detriment of the average person, she loved it.* That is another tax, she agreed, a hidden and particularly vicious tax.

They try to tell us that the money issue is boring or irrelevant.* In fact, it is the very pith of our social lives, and morally, Constitutionally, and economically, the central bank is a disaster. Thanks to the work of this movement, Americans are starting to understand what has been hidden from them for so long:* that we have a right to sound and honest money, not to a dollar debauched for the special interests.

Unconstitutional government has created a war crisis, a financial crisis, a dollar crisis, and a freedom crisis.* But we don't have to take it.* We don't have to passively accept more dead soldiers, a lower standard of living, rising prices, a national ID, eavesdropping on our emails and phone calls, and all the rest.

We can return to first principles, and build the brightest, most brilliant future any people on earth has ever aspired to.* Help me teach this lesson.* Help me campaign all over this country, in cooperation with our huge and growing volunteer army.* Help me show that change is not only possible, but also essential.* Please, make your most generous contribution (https://www.ronpaul2008.com/donate/) to this campaign for a Constitutional presidency worthy of our people. Invest in freedom:* for yourself, for your family, for your future.

Sincerely,

Ron

BucEyedPea
08-22-2007, 02:17 PM
One volunteer even rented an airplane and flew a wonderful sign around the sky.* What great, creative, self-starting people I'm meeting, at every stop, all of them united by a love of America and American freedom.
Now this, brings a tear to my eye! :deevee:
A good cry it t'is though!

ChiefaRoo
08-22-2007, 03:55 PM
Who is Ron Paul? Well he's a future footnote in the upcoming Presidential race of 2008. Duh.