Ron Paul is very quickly winning me over

[eots]

Congressman Ron Paul, MD – 9-term Congressman from Texas, 1979 - 1985, 1997 - present. Currently, candidate for the Republican nomination for the 2008 Presidential election. Member of the House Financial Services Committee, the International Relations committee, and the Joint Economic Committee. On the Financial Services Committee, he serves as the Vice Chairman of the Oversight and Investigations subcommittee. 1988 Libertarian Party candidate for President. Physician. Former Flight Surgeon, U.S. Air Force.

Audio interview The Alex Jones Show 1/18/07: "Dr. Ron Paul, Texas Congressman exploring a run for President, appeared on The Alex Jones Show Wednesday and had the following to say about 9/11:

Caller: I want a complete, impartial, and totally independent investigation of the events of September 11, 2001 . I'm tired of this bogus garbage about terrorism. Ask Michael Meacher about how he feels about this bogus war on terrorism. Can you comment on that please?

Congressman Paul: Well, that would be nice to have. Unfortunately, we don't have that in place. It will be a little bit better now with the Democrats now in charge of oversight. But you know, for top level policy there's not a whole lot of difference between the two policies so a real investigation isn't going to happen. But I think we have to keep pushing for it. And like you and others, we see the investigations that have been done so far as more or less cover-up and no real explanation of what went on." http://www.total911.info


Presidential campaign website: http://ronpaul2008.com/


Bio: http://www.house.gov/paul/bio.shtml

 

[William Joyce]

Jews will make sure Ron Paul isn't president. He's a conservative who doesn't kiss Israel's ass. They spend a lot of time and money taking down such men.

 

[William Joyce]

UPDATE: Visiting family over Labor Day weekend, saw RP for President billboard in Missouri. Huh.

 

[jillian]

Jews will make sure Ron Paul isn't president. He's a conservative who doesn't kiss Israel's ass. They spend a lot of time and money taking down such men.

Of course you're right... damn jews should just walk quietly into the gas chambers again...

 

[William Joyce]

Of course you're right... damn jews should just walk quietly into the gas chambers again...

Eh... I would be happy if they just stepped down from running the Pentagon and eased off on denuding the culture. Or if enough of our people saw to that, either way.

Or, if you prefer to keep the present mode of debate, I'll just respond to any criticism of whites that the critic "just wants to kill us all." Real productive.

 

[jillian]

Eh... I would be happy if they just stepped down from running the Pentagon and eased off on denuding the culture. Or if enough of our people saw to that, either way.

Or, if you prefer to keep the present mode of debate, I'll just respond to any criticism of whites that the critic "just wants to kill us all." Real productive.

Jews run the pentagon?!?!?! lol.... Do tell which of the Joint Chiefs of Staff are Jews. And if 1.5% of the general population can "denud[e] the culture", you've got even more problems than you think.

You want productive? Try not being a caricature.

 

[Gem]

Sen. Paul also said tonight at the debate that he would like to abolish the CIA and the FBI while he's at it, lol.

He reminds me of my father...so libertarian hes practically an anarchist. "Just leave me...I mean US...alone! We'll leave all of your countries, we'll stay the hell out of your lives...just everyone stay the hell out of everyone elses business...NO ONE WILL TOUCH ANYONE IN THIS HOUSE EVER AGAIN!!! AND ONE MORE WORD AND I'LL TURN THIS CAR AROUND!!!!" Ok...that last part might have been more my dad than Ron Paul...but you get the point.

In a discussion about abortion, my father once said that he would be more likely to support parents being able to kill their children legally up until the point where they could fight back for themselves than support people trying to tell other people what they could or couldnt do with their own bodies...he was hyperbolizing (I think...) to make a point...but just like Ron Paul...he would rather just have everyone leave everyone else the hell alone.

 

[CharlestonChad]

RP won me over tonight. IMO, he's right on the mark regarding freedom, economy, and foreign policy. RP is an honest guy who sticks to his guns. We need to eliminate the neocon trends of the candidates and president, and go towards the beliefs that our founding fathers held, which was less intrusive government and an emphasis on individuality.

 

[onedomino]

Eh... I would be happy if they just stepped down from running the Pentagon and eased off on denuding the culture. Or if enough of our people saw to that, either way.

Or, if you prefer to keep the present mode of debate, I'll just respond to any criticism of whites that the critic "just wants to kill us all." Real productive.

Let's see your evidence that Jews are running the Pentagon. I guess John Shalikashvili was a Georgian jew, Colin Powell was a African American jew, and Michael Mullen is an Irish jew. No doubt "Perfect Peter" Pace was working for Mossad.

 

[Annie]

Let's see your evidence that Jews are running the Pentagon. I guess John Shalikashvili was a Georgian jew, Colin Powell was a African American jew, and Michael Mullen is an Irish jew. No doubt "Perfect Peter" Pace was working for Mossad.

I opened this thread cause you were the last poster, not disappointed!

 

[Vintij]

I guess I was wrong about ron paul, I thought he did a great job last night in new hampshire. He is very passionate and believes what he is saying. Unlike huckabee who says anything to get the "honor" vote, or romney who does'nt even know what he's saying half the time, or thompson whos second in the polls and does not even show up. Come on republicans, second in the polls?!? And does not debate? What is this a popularity contest.

 

[Ninja]

RP lost points with me last night. If he's trying to deny the immense popular support for the invasion of Iraq, he's practicing historical revisionism. I say this as someone who was against the invasion.

Unlike RP, Huckabee said something that wasn't politically expedient and probably lost votes as a result. Huckabee took the high road last night. Good on him.

 

[Vintij]

RP lost points with me last night. If he's trying to deny the immense popular support for the invasion of Iraq, he's practicing historical revisionism. I say this as someone who was against the invasion.

Unlike RP, Huckabee said something that wasn't politically expedient and probably lost votes as a result. Huckabee took the high road last night. Good on him.

Yea, but I think Paul understands that people are not fond of this war and the only way to win in 08 is to just swallow some pride and give in to the polls. I guess you could say its a political move but at this point, the republicans dont stand a chance with angry americans without using some strategy to get the populiar vote back.

 

[trobinett]

I guess I was wrong about ron paul, I thought he did a great job last night in new hampshire. He is very passionate and believes what he is saying. Unlike huckabee who says anything to get the "honor" vote, or romney who does'nt even know what he's saying half the time, or thompson whos second in the polls and does not even show up. Come on republicans, second in the polls?!? And does not debate? What is this a popularity contest.

Another joke by Vintij.

Of COURSE its a popularity contest, duh!

 

[eots]

Hannity Lies To Discredit Ron Paul After Debate
Claims "Paulites" flood voted to skew text poll, yet only one vote per phone number was allowed

Prison Planet | September 6, 2007
Paul Joseph Watson

Fox News and Sean Hannity tried to discredit Ron Paul last night after the latest debate by claiming the Texas Congressman's runaway success in the subsequent text messaging poll was due to "Paulites" flood voting, when in fact only one vote per phone number was allowed.

Ernest Raposa, a viewer in New Bedford, MA, decided to text in his support for Ron Paul and received a message back stating, "FOX News UVOTE: Thank you for voting! Watch Hannity & Colmes for the results."

"As the show progressed, it became obvious, as we have seen previously, that Ron Paul had the most support, hovering around 33 per cent," writes Raposa. "Around 11:25pm EST Hannity declared that though Ron Paul had DOUBLE the support of the tied for second place Giuliani and Huckabee it was clear that the "Paulites" were simply dialing in over and over again, devaluing his lead."

Aiming to test Hannity's theory, Raposa attempted to text in a second vote for Ron Paul from the same cellphone. He received a message back saying, "You have already voted on tonight's debate. Thank you for your participation."



Only one vote per cellphone was allowed, therefore Hannity's contention that Ron Paul supporters were "were simply dialing in over and over again" was nothing more than a brazen lie intended to dismiss the Congressman's widespread popularity. No one at Fox News bothered to correct Hannity and no retraction was issued.

Debunkers continually claim that Paul's success in text message and internet polls is merely a result of a small group of supporters zealously "spamming" or "flooding" the polls when in fact votes are limited to one per IP address and one per cellphone number.

Such dirty tactics from Neo-Con stooge Hannity and Fox News were merely a continuation of Fox's policy to attack Ron Paul throughout the broadcast.

Despite the fact that the New Hampshire audience broke out in spontaneous wild applause at almost everything the Congressman said, Fox News deliberately boosted the microphones of the other candidates when Paul was speaking, making sure the snickers of Giuliani, Romney and the rest were clearly audible.



Establishment darlings were once again afforded shed loads more time and even nobodies like Huckabee and Brownback got twice the amount of questions compared to the Congressman. Paul got the chance to answer just three direct questions in a 90 minute debate.

Fox News moderators weighed in with glee in an attempt to ruffle, smear and sidetrack Ron Paul. His first question revolved around a purposeful misquote of the Congressman's position on allowing pilots to be armed and it only went downhill from there.

"The second question though revealed the unbelievable bias of Fox News," writes Anthony Wade . "In response to a question about Iraq and troops, Paul reiterated that we needed to pull the troops home, period. He has consistently said that we need to address the entire foreign policy and start protecting our own borders and our own country. In response to the false notion that there would be a ?bloodbath? if we just pulled out, Paul quickly reminded everyone that the same people speculating that there would be a bloodbath are the same people who said Iraq would be a ?cakewalk? and a ?slam dunk.? He then correctly pointed out the faulty logic that says we need to stay for stability when it is widely reported that our presence on the Arabian Peninsula is what prompted the attacks of 911. The response from Chris Wallace was to pose his own follow up question which was, ?So you are saying you would take your marching orders from al Qaeda??

"Are you kidding me? The inherent bias in the question was disgusting during a debate forum and Chris Wallace revealed himself as nothing but a whore for the machine and not a credible newsperson. Thankfully, Dr. Paul was up to the task by responding that he would take his marching orders from the Constitution."



The last question was another manufactured "hypothetical" in which Iran had nukes and was threatening to use them on Israel. Fox News were sure to go to Ron Paul first in order to have the other candidates gang up on him after.

As soon as the debate was over, Giuliani and Hannity were busy attempting to mock Congressman Paul with more sophomoric barbs.

The desperation of the Neo-Cons and the establishment to ridicule Ron Paul again highlights the sheer terror that they are experiencing in light of the fact that a real candidate communicating about real issues is putting the rest of the shills to shame.

By continuing to smear, lie about and dismiss the Congressman, Hannity, Fox and their ilk are nervously praying that they can keep the lid on the Ron Paul Revolution and prevent the Texan from breaking into the vaunted "top tier" and obliterating the bought and paid for competition.

 

[jillian]

Ron Paul is at 2% in the polls.... has been steady at that number. Hardly a "revolution'. And hardly something that would strike terror into the hearts of anyone.

http://pollingreport.com/wh08rep.htm

 

[eots]

Ron Paul is at 2% in the polls.... has been steady at that number. Hardly a "revolution'. And hardly something that would strike terror into the hearts of anyone.

http://pollingreport.com/wh08rep.htm

no terror but a ray of hope

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7d_e9lrcZ8[/ame]

http://www.ronpaul2008.com
__________________

 

[Edward]

NATO...an international criminal organization that uses illegal war-fare tactics to achieve it's goals. NATO loves depleted uranium. It also undermines the sovereignty of the US.

No, it makes nations equals and recognizes the obligation of our nation to abide the by law of nations (i.e., the ignorant Ronny doesn't understand that the Supreme law of the land is the Constitution and any and all treaties and laws entered into by the United States). He has no understanding of what sovereignity means because if he did than he would know that sovereignity requires our nation to work with others and refusing to do so threatens our sovereignity and turns us into a rogue nation. If we are going to have elections every four years and generally ignore treaties, and refuse to interact with other nations as equals than we are going to become a threat to them and their families.

Any nation in their right mind isn't going to wait for the next election if they feel that we might elect someone who won't honor the law of nations or abide by those rules set forth that govern our relations. What would this mean for us? It would mean that they would likely band together against economically, socially and militarily us and even use military force if they felt so threatened by the possibility of someone like Ron Paul being elected who would violate the Constitution in respect to the supremacy of U.S. treaties. The only thing higher than treaties we enter into is the Constitution itself. Treaties along with the Constitution and our laws are the supreme law of the land. If a treaty conflicts with the Constitution than they can be challenged on constitutional grounds but if they do not conflict with the Constitution they become the "supreme law of the land." Try wrapping your ignorant mind around that and read what those who wrote the Constitution had to say on this subject.

It's all wasted money, and that's one of the staunchest reasons for not supporting most of it. More tax dollars to keep in your pocket.

If we are going to have a constitution and are going to have a national government that deals with foreign nations than any treaties we enter into as a nation must become binding upon us or we risk the very sovereignity we claim. This state would have to exist even if we did not have a constitution since each state, or the united States would have to ratify treaties with other nations and to abide by them. One of the biggest mistakes we made was allowing the Constitution to be ratified even though the majority of Americans opposed it at the time but so long as we have it we must abide by it especially when it comes to provisions dealing with other nations and our relationship with them.

 

[Edward]

Yea, but I think Paul understands that people are not fond of this war and the only way to win in 08 is to just swallow some pride and give in to the polls. I guess you could say its a political move but at this point, the republicans dont stand a chance with angry americans without using some strategy to get the populiar vote back.

Ron Paul has been opposed to the war as early as September of 2002 (which was before we invaded Iraq). Your ignorance in this respect is shocking. I may not agree with Ron Paul or his idiotic ilk but to think that you would try to re-cast him into something he is not is sickening to watch. I wouldn't call it a "political move" because he has been consistent in his position regardless of its merits. Let's begin by quoting from a speech he gave in 2002. I quote parts of his speech below. I suggest you stop trying to re-cast Paul and start addressing his position. He is not the typical Republican anymore than Democrats who oppose this war (i.e., Obama) are typical Democrats.

RON PAUL's SPEECH

Soon we hope to have hearings on the pending war with Iraq. I am concerned there are some questions that won’t be asked- and maybe will not even be allowed to be asked. Here are some questions I would like answered by those who are urging us to start this war.

1. Is it not true that the reason we did not bomb the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War was because we knew they could retaliate?

2. Is it not also true that we are willing to bomb Iraq now because we know it cannot retaliate- which just confirms that there is no real threat?

....

14. Is it not true that the constitutional power to declare war is exclusively that of the Congress? Should presidents, contrary to the Constitution, allow Congress to concur only when pressured by public opinion? Are presidents permitted to rely on the UN for permission to go to war?

....

22. If we claim membership in the international community and conform to its rules only when it pleases us, does this not serve to undermine our position, directing animosity toward us by both friend and foe?

....

26. Is it not true that preventive war is synonymous with an act of aggression, and has never been considered a moral or legitimate US policy?

....

29. What is the moral argument for attacking a nation that has not initiated aggression against us, and could not if it wanted?

30. Where does the Constitution grant us permission to wage war for any reason other than self-defense?

31. Is it not true that a war against Iraq rejects the sentiments of the time-honored Treaty of Westphalia, nearly 400 years ago, that countries should never go into another for the purpose of regime change?

32. Is it not true that the more civilized a society is, the less likely disagreements will be settled by war?

33. Is it not true that since World War II Congress has not declared war and- not coincidentally- we have not since then had a clear-cut victory?

....

35. Why don't those who want war bring a formal declaration of war resolution to the floor of Congress?

 

[Dirt McGirt]

Ron Paul is at 2% in the polls.....

http://pollingreport.com/wh08rep.htm

That 2% is comprised of the pregnant woman voters and the stoned college slackers demographic. Why am I not surprised that it's mostly the hormonally impaired and the potheads that think Ron Paul has a legitimate shot at winning?