Ron Paul Wont Survive...

I think Ron Paul is the best thing since sliced bread but I honestly don't think he'll survive the election process. I'd bet money he's taken out some way, either by force or some staged smearing campaign.

Well, he doesn't have very much of the voters at this moment, so there really is no need to "take him out". It's sad, he won't win the party nomination, and he has what America needs.

"They" won't take him out although I agree he won't survive the process. If it's close "they" will manipulate the voting results so he doesn't win. The only way around is for him to be ahead by such a large margin that the discrepency between the polls and the manipulated results are so great that it causes an uproar and recount.
The only way he can win is by a landslide, so great that "they" can't manipulate the results...
... Vote Ron Paul... Get the word out to EVERYONE. It's the only way he's got a chance.

hes a write in for me, as for the other candidates, i hope a truck smashes them to pieces. they suck and should go back to communist china with there baby eating friends.

Ron Paul is a strong advocate for unrestricted capitalism. Not cool.

I recommend that everyone vote Socialist and Green. These two parties stances on the issues are practically identical (and should probably consolidate).

if i wanted to live in chinas oppresive world, or chavez stupid little pretend land i would vote socialist or green, but everyone ive ever met from those parties is crazy, or nuts. so no thanks im all for unrestricted freedom of choice. And no your precious environment wont suffer, as technology can only get better. And the whole global warming thing is basicly a scam. Sure our planet is in trouble, from humans who want to tax other humans for a completely illogical reason. Plus you should like the fact Ron Paul wants to at the least stop the war on drugs.

Unrestricted Capitalism??? Did you just make that up???

I wonder if you mean open trade with other countries??? If that is Unrestricted Capitalism than I am all for it. I think instead of BOMBING other countries because of our Foreign Policy as a means to clean up our messes we have caused as well as give us an excuse to increase military spending to numbers we thought we would never see before, I think Ron Paul is speaking about REVERSING our Foreign Policy mistakes by talking to other countries instead of intimidating them. There are a lot of Republicans calling him an "Isolationist" which isn't what he stands for.

I love the list someone here always posts where it shows his voting record in a simplistic way as it gives us a very good idea where Dr. Paul is coming from.

I think Ron Paul is OUR ONLY choice in these elections as almost all the other candidates from both sides basically are the same. Also, where are these other parties you speak of??? They cant even get a voice either, whether I believe in there cause or not. When did our country become a TWO PARTY system ONLY??? I believe it was right after Ross Perot made his run at the Presidency. I think it scared the Powers that Be that there was another alternative to the typical ASS and ELEPHANT parties.

Yes, that is what I mean. We need a President who understands the burden that NAFTA has placed on American workers. Furthermore, we need more equitable exports that meet the import numbers. Action on this point needs to be taken against China, who has been screwing us over for years by limiting their American imports, even though we're their biggest customer.



I have no problems with Paul on these points, and I like him personally, inasmuch I think he's a nice guy. But his "hands-off" approach to economics is, I feel, a big mistake.



On this, we agree 100%. However, Nader, for the Green Party, did at least make a statement in his run. I think more and more people are opening up to the idea of voting "outside" the box. The two big parties have been screwing us for so long that such a movement is inevitable.

It doesn't matter who gets in office in 2008, the USA is in a major decline financially and Bush has set in motion the destruction of the armed force by bleeding it out in slow motion in Iraq.

Why can't the power of the USA beat some small rag tag Militia's in Iraq ? it could only be because someone on the US side doesn't want to. This is exactly what defeated the Germans in WW2, they fought on 2 major fronts ( does that ring a bell ? ) and the eastern front was ill prepared for and massive losses incurred eventually causing it to retreat and ultimately lose the second world war.

Its Deja Vu all over again and the setup is in play, its a pity the people inside the USA can't see it and think everything is all peachy.

www.rense.com... <--- everyone needs to read that.

Masonic Light - I appreciate your politeness and not reading "too much" into my response. Usually somebody would of jumped all over my post as being too straight forward.

Ron Paul does not endorse NAFTA at all. He would do everything in his power to return our manufacturing jobs back to the US as well as keep pressuring China to do something about its undervalued currency.

As far as his hands off approach to economics he believes in the Capitalistic goal of Free competition. He is well aware that the reason there really is no REAL competition is because of all the entitlements the Government gives to CERTAIN Corporations because of there Lobbyists in Congress. He will MAKE the greedy Corporations pay there taxes instead of using Government Tax Subsidies that most corporations receive for the Good of the Government.

I will get together some videos where he explains his Economic Policies in more detail so your can hear from the man himself.

No problem. My skin is pretty thick; after all, I hang out on the "Secret Societies" board, and the mudslinging in there often needs a bulldozer to clear it up.



It was my understanding that Paul supports less government "interference" with business. If I am wrong on this point I will concede, and if he truly opposes NAFTA, then my hat goes off to him.



The last part is fine, and he would certainly have my support in that endeavor. However, as a socialist, I feel that it is treating the symptoms instead of looking at a cure.

My understanding on Socialism in general is that Government is entitled to support everyone no matter how hard they work. I dont believe I should work twice as hard to support someone who doesnt do anything. I believe the reason a lot of people think they dont have any choice in the matter is because of what our Government has done. I FIRMLY believe the Government introduced Crack Cocaine in L.A. so they could place a whole race of people in the Legal System and in Prison. You can go back to when this country was formed by looking at the history of the Indians and what our so called GREAT LEADERS did to a whole race of people. I think that Ron Paul will expose the truth on a lot of things our Government did and has done to keep certain segments of our population in poverty. I dont think the answer is to treat everyone the same as far as giving money away because someone or some segment of our society feels they have been mistreated. I think Ron Paul can bring EVERYONE together and compete fair and square. Its a tough issue which I think some socialism is needed but we need to empower people as a whole, not just the Rich and powerful.

In the 2006 election cycle the major polls and tw parties had these numbers.

What do you call yourself? 47% democrat 48% republican 5% Independent

In the most recent polls: 32% democrat 25% republican 42% Independent

The wind of change is blowing, I see independents sweeping into many seats if DIEBLOD doesnt count the votes, iif they do and try to screw Americans I see REVOLUTION. The only problem is the sheeple, when Bush explodes a nuke in miami and tells everyone that IRAN DID IT, we needyou to go to camps for your own protection of course, and go to war against Iran, I see the people beting each other up to get into the camp first.

I posted this somewhere else...Stock up on: Food, Water filter like a burkee, medicine, bullets and toilet paper. If you havent got some gold and silver I would suggest getting some. Don't say you werent warned.

This is a common misconception among people in United States, due primarily to the massive anti-socialist propaganda they've been fed since childhood. Other nations, even those with capitalistic systems such as Canada and the UK, have no fear of the dreaded "S" word, but the US government has launched a mind war against it ages ago.

Socialism doesn't claim that people who do no work should reap the same benefits as those who do work. It merely states that the worker should reap the entire benefits of his/her labor instead of being paid a wage, with excess profits pocketed by the capitalist.

The entire socialist theory is too lengthy and in depth to go into on this thread, and it would be off-topic anyway. But if you're interesting in learning more, the website of the Socialist Party of the United States has a great treasure house of information.



I would say that you're absolutely right....although I'm not sure if I would say the "government", since most elected officials were unaware of it. Nevertheless, the scam was orchestrated by some of the top brass in both the CIA and the FBI...and interestingly, socialism was once again involved.

In the late 1960's, a group of black university students in L.A. formed the Black Panther Party For Self-Defense. This organization sought to unite militant black intellectuals who would stand together and fight against police brutality in ghetto neighborhoods. Eventually, the party evolved, and they took up a banner of social justice in general, and allied themselves with a militant group of white university students and protesters called Students For A Democratic Society.

The Students For A Democratic Society had adopted a Communist outlook, and the Black Panthers followed, adopting Marxism-Leninism-Maoism as its party line. The Panthers begin to open stations all over the L.A. ghettoes, supplying children from poverty-stricken areas with free breakfast before school. Some of the Panthers had become physicians, and were offering free medical care.

In short, they began to get a lot of support...not only from the black community, but from the white hippie radicals. Declassified FBI documents show that agents were worried that a Communist revolution was imminent, and the communities who supported socialist revolutionaries must be neutralized.

And what better way to "neutralize" a community than pumping it full of dope?





[edit on 7-6-2007 by Masonic Light]

As a Canadian I am confused.

if he is the clear winner of the debates, which he is, why would that not translate into votes?

might be a dumb question...sorry

but seriously please explain this too me.
how do we know what his votes are if you have not voted yet?


what is the disconnect b/t the debate poll results and the other polls, I assume we are talking polls?


[edit on 7-6-2007 by junglelord]

They're already optimistic that he might already have NH in the votes. Despite what the media is trying to spin, Ron Paul's momentum is growing ,and he is becoming a viable candidate. Hell, after the last two debates, he's been going on big shows left and right. Bill Maher, Colbert, and the Daily Show will propel him right into the 18-25 demographic of voters.

Again I'm not trying to derail the thread with commie propaganda, but the obvious answer is "money". In the USA, the system is stacked against anyone who is not a multi-millionaire, which obviously presents a problem if we want to call ourselves a "democracy".

Well, I would guess that Ron Paul has money since he was a Doctor for many years and delivered some 4,000 babies.

I think the real problem is that he doesnt have Presidential money which is ASTRONOMICAL.

I guess it depends on your definition of Rich means.

If Ron Paul can win the NH primary than we still have hope.

I think if Ron does all the things he says he will do the hit will be on!!!It seems to me when a President or congressman or anyone who goes against the (real power) grain.Goes BYEBYE!!

The caucuses and the unpledged delegates give the party pretty much all the leverage they'll need to show Ron Paul the door if they really want to and have enough organizational discipline to impose the national parties will on the state organization.

Paul needs to run an aggressive (some would say dirty) campaign to hurt the other contenders- it will reflect badly on him and perhaps be beneath his dignity (which it really must not be for someone who aspires to be a truly successful politician, because god knows the establishment doesn't play fair, as Paul already learned in Iowa) but if he can render the front runners unelectable for the general it will make him more acceptable in the caucuses and to the unpledged delegates.

He also needs to rely heavily on the grass roots to carry him in most locations so that he can concentrate his efforts in strategic locations (winner take all states and swing states) in order to locally outspend and out appear the rest of the field in those places.

If he can't do those things effectively, he's in trouble.