Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
Even though I clarified that these are 5 people that came to the same ideas as I did independently of me (meaning we did not have any influence on
each other, I was surprised to find so many people I knew had done the same thing as me). It doesn't matter, because I was proud partisan democrat
and I came to the decision to support Paul on my own. If I did, then of course there are others out there that came to the same conclusion as me. It
is not a spontaneous conclusion there are things that factor in. They led me in one direction and the same things will lead others in the same
direction. You are being a little delusional here.
I also linked you to an entire organization of these disenfranchised dems though I don't figure you gave it a look. This isn't a localized
phenomenon it's a mass exodus.
You're trying to make a generalization from cherry-picked anecdotes. If you want to make the claim that a significant number of Obama voters are
going to switch to Ron Paul, then you need to link to some scientific polls. Otherwise, you're just blowing smoke.
Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
Also.."he is a despicable man" lol. You have no reason to believe such a thing. He has great morals, and if ANY candidate has a god/messiah complex
it is Obama. He even made superman references in regards to himself. People treated him like a messiah in '08. You need to snap out of it. You have
been brainwashed by the MSM. Do a little independent research on Paul. Watch some videos of him rather than what the MSM tells you about him.I
guarantee any Paul supporter knows more about their candidate than you know about yours. We know he is a decent man, with morals, because he is
probably one of the most independently researched candidates in history.
Perhaps you know more about Ron Paul than I know about Obama, but this is a discussion board, not a trivia contest. I have extensively researched Ron
Paul's philosophy, history, associates, and positions. I find him lacking.
Originally posted by GogoVicMorrowWhat's more is your misunderstanding of his policy and your thinking that he is at all racist. Of
course he is not racist...It is ridiculous to make baseless accusations like that.
All I have to say is that Ron Paul supporters, like their idol, have an excuse for everything. Look- if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck,
it's probably a duck. There are three ways of looking at the newspaper episode, along with other fundraising materials, and his speech in front of a
confederate flag claiming the south was right in the civil war.
- Ron Paul is a Racist and knew what was published in the newsletters. This should disqualify him from any national office.
- Ron Paul is not a racist, and approved of the newsletters in a bid to appeal to racists, paranoids and insane people, in an attempt to gain public
office. This should disqualify him from getting the votes of any sane person.
- Ron Paul is not Racist and Had no knowledge of the newsletter content. This implies that he is incompetent, and has poor judgement when it comes
to deciding whom to trust. You guessed it. This is still a huge black mark on his record.
Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
Also the gold/silver backed currency is what we NEED. It is sound. When our money stopped being backed by gold and silver was when all the problems
began (that and the start of the FED). You do know that our money used to be backed by silver and gold right? Everything was fine then, why do you
think it is some absurd notion now?
Look: goldbugs are delusional. The idea that all the economic problems began with the fed is laughable: There have been economic crises and
recessions since the beginning of capitalism. Everything certainly was not "fine" before fiat currency.
en.wikipedia.org...
In fact, the gold standard prolonged the great depression.
en.wikipedia.org...
Ron Paul's economic platform is based on a fringe group, called the 'austrian' economists, who have been sustained in existence by donations from
wealthy right-wingers... Needless to say, their views are rejected overwhelmingly by professional economists. They are more con-men than scholars.
