Why Won't You People Listen To This Man???

[Paulie]

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5hMeNnbSqkk&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5hMeNnbSqkk&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>


Listen to him!! He predicts the '87 recession due to our policy in 1983!

This guy's been right for 30 years, and hasn't changed his tune ONE IOTA.

Why do you people want to continue letting the Fed manipulate our money? Why do you want us to continue going through lows like this?

Why won't you LISTEN to this man!?

 

[Bern80]

I don't know. Why don't todays democrats listen to JFK when he said "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what can you do for your country."?

 

[midcan5]

Because he simply does not connect to the normal person. He has zero charisma but I love the picture 'chicks dig me."

 

[jillian]

Because his policies are naive. His international policies are disasterous. His domestic policies would be a nightmare. Because he won't disavow white supremacists.

Again, you like the guy fine. It's your right.

Just keep him far away from me. I look forward to watching his third party candidacy though.

 

[Bern80]

Because he simply does not connect to the normal person. He has zero charisma but I love the picture 'chicks dig me."

I think what is really being asked is why republicans aren't listening to one of their own. Which is interesting since their certianly aren't listening to one of their own either.

The issues the republicans are haveing is they are unfortunately learning from the dems and taking queues as to what they think they need to do get votes which is essentially pander in a never game of 'look what i got you'.

 

[pegwinn]

Because his policies are naive. His international policies are disasterous. His domestic policies would be a nightmare. Because he won't disavow white supremacists.

Again, you like the guy fine. It's your right.

Just keep him far away from me. I look forward to watching his third party candidacy though.

Naive? Sticking to the Constitution is naive? Wow.

International policy. Non-interventionalist actions would be disasterous? No habla.

Domestically a nightmare?

I can't figure out how you are coming up with these. Especially when the alternative is more .gov bloat and higher taxes.

 

[Alucard]

Naive? Sticking to the Constitution is naive? Wow.

International policy. Non-interventionalist actions would be disasterous? No habla.

Domestically a nightmare?

I can't figure out how you are coming up with these. Especially when the alternative is more .gov bloat and higher taxes.

To Libs the writers of the constitution were naive!!!

Did you forget... they are an intellect well beyond us humans

 

[Bern80]

Because his policies are naive. His international policies are disasterous. His domestic policies would be a nightmare. Because he won't disavow white supremacists.

Again, you like the guy fine. It's your right.

Just keep him far away from me. I look forward to watching his third party candidacy though.

And what exactley do you see in our future if RP is elected? Return to segregation perhaps? I'm sure that would fly right through congress. Aren't you also suppossed to want us out of Iraq?

 

[Steerpike]

The number one turn-off for a lot of people regarding Ron Paul are his supporters. He's attracted, in addition to some reasonable people I know, a lot of loons, and they have become sort of the grass-roots face of the cause, at least around here.

The same guy who is trying to convince me about Ron Paul is, in the next breath, sending lunatic links from Alex Jones web sites. There no telling how much damage that sort of thing has done to Paul's support...

 

[Paulie]

The number one turn-off for a lot of people regarding Ron Paul are his supporters. He's attracted, in addition to some reasonable people I know, a lot of loons, and they have become sort of the grass-roots face of the cause, at least around here.

The same guy who is trying to convince me about Ron Paul is, in the next breath, sending lunatic links from Alex Jones web sites. There no telling how much damage that sort of thing has done to Paul's support...

What does that have to do with Ron Paul HIMSELF, though?

Think of how many crazy rednecks down south are supporting McCain, or Rudy, or Huckabee, because they'll "nuke dem ayrabs!". There's racists all OVER this country, and no doubt, there's going to be just as many of them voting for OTHER candidates this year, as one's who vote for RP.

The only reason you know so much about RP's specific supporters, is because anti-RP bloggers and the MSM have worked as hard as they can to make sure the stories about RP that go viral, are one's that smeer his credibility.

How many rednecks down south (YOU know the one's I'm talking about) voted for Bush again in '04, just because they wanted to see him continue bombing the shit out of those dirty muslims? The MSM could have just as easily done an expose` on Bush's supporters, and came up with PLENTY of KKK idiots, and Stormfront people. Don Black of Stormfront was supporting Bush when he was running.

There are 10's of millions of morons in this world. They're not all voting for Ron Paul. You have to take into consideration just how many crazy lunatics are voting for EACH candidate. If the MSM would cover RP more regularly and take him seriously, especially considering he's beaten each of the other Rep. candidates so far in a primary, maybe his supporters wouldn't feel the overwhelming need to plaster his face and name everywhere to combat the unfair coverage.

It's basically grassroots vs. MSM in this campaign. Do a little research. Survey people. I'll bet you'll find just as many kooks voting for the others as well.

but I love the picture 'chicks dig me."

My son.

 

[Steerpike]

What does that have to do with Ron Paul HIMSELF, though?

Never said it did. These people are just the most visible Paul supporters. Sure, plenty of kooks in all parties voting for candidates, but they aren't the public face of the candidate's supporters in most instances, like they seem to be with Ron Paul. It's unfortunate. But the perception certainly has an impact.

 

[Paulie]

Never said it did. These people are just the most visible Paul supporters. Sure, plenty of kooks in all parties voting for candidates, but they aren't the public face of the candidate's supporters in most instances, like they seem to be with Ron Paul. It's unfortunate. But the perception certainly has an impact.

Yeah, and the MSM deals in perception control. If they wanted to, they could make Ron Paul look like GOD, and he could very well be in contention state by state.

But they're doing that for McCain and Romney instead. Guys who would benefit them a whole lot more.

 

[Steerpike]

Yeah, and the MSM deals in perception control. If they wanted to, they could make Ron Paul look like GOD, and he could very well be in contention state by state.

But they're doing that for McCain and Romney instead. Guys who would benefit them a whole lot more.

Well, yeah. Paul isn't going to get much positive play in the establishment media. So he's got to build an image on his own if he wants to do well, and having a bunch of nuts running around doesn't help the cause

 

[Paulie]

Well, yeah. Paul isn't going to get much positive play in the establishment media. So he's got to build an image on his own if he wants to do well, and having a bunch of nuts running around doesn't help the cause

You can't make people support you. Those "nuts" are supporting him because many of them have been waiting their entire lives for a politician like him to run for president. Many of them think this is our last shot at restoring our republic to the way it was INTENDED to be, so it just happens to make people quite zealous about their cause.

I'm heavily involved in the grassroots cause, and at least here in south Jersey where I live, we don't have "nuts" running around acting like idiots. We're a pretty well groomed, well intentioned, family oriented bunch. When I go to the cities, like Philly, yeah I'll see some idiots. WELL INTENTIONED idiots, but they just don't quite seem to understand the proper way to assist a presidential campaign. It's sad, but that shouldn't be taken out on RP himself. He's personally asked his grassroots to tone it down, but it's hard to control so many people that aren't officially connected to you in any way.

My bottom line is, if you like a guy, VOTE FOR HIM. Why people skip on voting for the candidate they LIKE, for voting for one they really don't like just to be a part of the "winning team", I'll never get.

Half the people I talk to when I canvass, say they like him, but he can't win, so they'll vote for who the TV says will win. That's the word all throughout the grassroots, all over the country.

RP could have twice as much poll support, primary and caucus votes, and delegates right now, if those people just voted their heart. I'd say that would definitely put him up near the top of the pack.

There's no such thing as "they can't win". Absolutely no such thing. ANYONE can win, if people want it bad enough. Isn't that what we were taught as kids?

 

[Steerpike]

When I go to the cities, like Philly, yeah I'll see some idiots. WELL INTENTIONED idiots, but they just don't quite seem to understand the proper way to assist a presidential campaign. It's sad, but that shouldn't be taken out on RP himself.

I agree that it shouldn't be. I'm just pointing out that, realistically, it is. There's a political radio talk show around here where every time they even mention Paul they cut to some audio of a complete loon who is supporting them.

One day they solicited Paul supporters to call in, and every person who called in was reasonable. The hosts of the show admitted that they were completely shocked by that fact.

So if you have two guys who are pretty well plugged in to politics who assumed that only nutjobs supported Paul, how do you think the average citizen gets their impression? I don't think Paul can do much about it though. He's certainly not going to get the nomination. Think he'll run as an independent?

 

[Shogun]

To Libs the writers of the constitution were naive!!!

Did you forget... they are an intellect well beyond us humans

No, to libs the writers of the Constitution were fellow minds bucking the same type of status quo conservatism.


DOH!

 

[Paulie]

I agree that it shouldn't be. I'm just pointing out that, realistically, it is. There's a political radio talk show around here where every time they even mention Paul they cut to some audio of a complete loon who is supporting them.

One day they solicited Paul supporters to call in, and every person who called in was reasonable. The hosts of the show admitted that they were completely shocked by that fact.

So if you have two guys who are pretty well plugged in to politics who assumed that only nutjobs supported Paul, how do you think the average citizen gets their impression? I don't think Paul can do much about it though. He's certainly not going to get the nomination. Think he'll run as an independent?

I really don't know. What I do know is, no Republican is going to win the White House this year. RP's supporters are not going to vote for anyone else except RP. That could be anywhere from 6-15&#37; of Republican voters right now. Possibly more, considering there's like 10 months to go still.

If RP runs indy, the GOP loses. If RP doesn't get the nomination, and doesn't run Indy, the GOP still loses. There's no way the GOP is going to beat the turnout of the Dem's, if they're missing 10% or more of their support.

If the GOP wants to see the Oval office in 2009, they better make some kind of concession to RP. VP slot, Treasury Secretary...SOMETHING.

I'm not sure RP would settle for that, but the GOP better be willing to compromise somewhere, or else this whole GOP race is really just a charade.

 

[jillian]

Naive? Sticking to the Constitution is naive? Wow.

International policy. Non-interventionalist actions would be disasterous? No habla.

Domestically a nightmare?

I can't figure out how you are coming up with these. Especially when the alternative is more .gov bloat and higher taxes.

We've been through this. The Constitution was never supposed to be read literally. His idea of "constitutionalism" doesn't bear any relationship to the way it's been construed since Marbury.

As for the other things, yes, government cutting off funding for the things that affect real people is a problem. So, yes, if you're middle or working class, that's going to be a nightmare.

Ask yourself what it is that draw the white supremacists to Paul. (No, I'm not saying he IS a white supremacist). Ask what it is that moves their agenda further. Then perhaps you'll understand my objections to Paul's policies.

 

[Paulie]

Ask yourself what it is that draw the white supremacists to Paul. (No, I'm not saying he IS a white supremacist). Ask what it is that moves their agenda further. Then perhaps you'll understand my objections to Paul's policies.

With this logic, we should cancel out any candidates until the end of time with policies of non-interventionism, and of fund cutting, and military aid to other countries, because it may just happen to "further the agendas" of hate groups. If you don't think Paul HIMSELF is a racist, then why should his policy ideas have to die because of what a bunch of people you don't even like, think about it?

So all the other regular, non-racist voters, who just have an overwhelming amount of respect and admiration for a man like Paul for having the courage to run a campaign on issues like he is, who just want their republic restored to it's constitutional intentions (whether you agree with that or not), have to suffer because some people like you don't like his negatively perceived SUPPORTERS?

That's bullshit jillian. If Paul's not a racist, then hate group agendas aren't going to be "furthered".

I'll be god damned if my candidate is going to get screwed over, because people like you don't like some of his supporters.

Why don't you just admit that you're liberal ideology doesn't jive with him to BEGIN with, so therefore you wouldn't be a supporter anyway. And also just admit that you don't want a president who would scale back the support for Israel.

Stop hiding behind this bullshit facade of "I dont like his supporters, they're dangerous", and just admit you JUST DON'T LIKE HIM. That's my reason for not supporting anyone else...I JUST DON'T LIKE THEM.

 

[Alucard]

No, to libs the writers of the Constitution were fellow minds bucking the same type of status quo conservatism.


DOH!

I'm glad you say that...

But your all talk... you have nothing in common...

Your from the great state of Missouri right!!!!

Then I guess you would agree to your Missouri forefathers and their Preamble to the Constitution since your are such like thinkers!!!! Right!

The Missouri Preamble 1845 .....

We, the people of Missouri, with profound
reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and grateful for His
goodness. Establish this Constitution...