|
I agree, Paul's the man. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Yes, I agree with this that Ron Paul is the one who is principled, disciplined.
Older man, stable home: He wont be doing some young intern in the oval office, nor will he be making
treasonistic Patriot Act legislation to strip America of her freedom and individual nobility:
Constitution secured-rights for all. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ron Paul is principled. Specifically, he takes the position that the Constitution means what it
says, and that BECAUSE every word and line of the constitution is a limitation on Government power,
we should limit it according to its wording. THAT is change. McCain and Obama ignore the
Constitution, and simply focus on following their grand vision - even though NONE of the grand
visions that ignore the Constitution of ANY of our presidents have ever actually achieved what they
set out to achieve. Instead, they have created bigger government, less freedom, higher taxes, and a
political system in which there are 10 lobbyists for every congressperson - political pork is the
rule in DC BECAUSE the government hands out trillions of dollars in cash and tens of thousands of
regulations that can make or break a business. Until and unless Congress and the Pres stop handing
out $ and favors, the corruption will continue. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
There's no doubt that Ron Paul, if elected president, would bring about more fundamental change than
any other candidate still in the race. But surely the magnitude of change envisaged by a candidate
is poor metric for deciding how good they are? You might just as well say that an out and out Nazi
or hardcore communist could bring about more change.
Paul seems like a decent and sincere man. Many of his policies and views are commendable but he
would be a disaster as president. It would be a rollback to the early 19th century in which people
starved on the streets because government refused to assume any responsibility for them.
He is also a hypocrite for claiming to be a libertarian yet seeking to lower the barriers between
church and state and promoting anti-gay initiatives. Of course, he always contrives some
pseudo-constitutional argument for these things, arguing that they should be taken out of the hands
of judges at the federal level and put under the control of local bigots. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Going into the New Hampshire primaries, polls showed that Barack Obama would win again for the
Democrats, and Ron Paul was posed to finish third or fourth for the Republicans and improve his
showing in the Iowa caucuses. It has been reported that both may have been cheated in NH by voting
machines and hand count fraud. As a result there, will be a recount for both parties. Many fear that
if no problems are found, it could further legitimize the electronic voting machines and hurt future
recounts. Ron Paul does not endorse a recount, and instead has chosen to focus on the primaries to
come. It was disappointing to finish in fifth place in NH, and I would have felt a lot better if he
had finished ahead of Mike Huckabee and Rudy Giuliani. The good news is that there still isn't a
Republican front runner. Giuliani failed to break into double digits in NH, finishing with 9%, only
one percent more than Paul. Regardless of what happens, Paul is the true candidate for change.
Others like Obama talk about it, but what are they saying would really change? There is a difference
between calling for change and actually having a proposed plan to bring it about.
First I'd like to say that I have no axe to grind with Obama, and find some of the allegations
brought against him petty and ridiculous. That having been said, for someone whose campaign is based
on change, he is pretty vague on exactly what and how he would change things. Saying you are going
to change things is mere words and empty promises. Real change requires plotting an entirely new
course with ideas, specifics, firm policy initiatives, and it doesn't always come quickly. The truth
is that behind all the rhetoric, Obama represents the status quo, and there is very little
difference between himself and Hillary Clinton. Obama's two years in the Senate and thin resume
means that he doesn't have that much political baggage. One can hardly dispute the fact that he
lacks experience, is unproven, untested, and lacks critical wisdom and policy knowledge. Paul, on
the other hand, has been advocating real change to our foreign policy, monetary policy, and the
corporate welfare state for thirty years. He is well read, and there is no other candidate who
studies political philosophy and economics more than he does. He has a distinguished voting record,
upholds the constitution, and has been likened to the founding fathers. One's gender or race does
not mark significant change, and I believe that Paul is the only candidate who can restore
America.
There are definitely some similarities between Paul and Obama. Both are promising change, enjoy huge
support on the Internet, have grassroots appeal, and have struck a chord with young voters. After
that, most of the similarities end. Obama is young, charismatic, smooth, and a great communicator
whose words are captivating and intoxicating. He makes you feel good about yourself. For the most
part, he has been a media darling, and some reporters have admitted bias on reporting about him
objectively. It will take more than a certain look, an image cute phrases and catchy slogans to
change things. The contrast is that Paul is a humble 72 year old constitutionalist, and is a model
of consistency. He admits that he has limitations, but his message of freedom does not. For the most
part, the mainstream media has tried to ignore and misrepresent Paul, his message, and his
supporters. Paul has always championed civil liberties and voted against the Patriot and the Real ID
Act. Meanwhile, Obama voted for the Real ID and to renew provisions of the Patriot Act. Paul doesn't
sugarcoat things, and is one of the few politicians who acknowledges our overspending, the weak
dollar, and the evils of the Federal Reserve. He also wants to eliminate income taxes and abolish
the IRS. There is little doubt that there is an appetite for change. Ron Paul addressed this issue
and said, “To me that means the only significant change we ought to have is get enough people in
Washington that read the constitution, obey the constitution, do only things that we are allowed to
do.”
Ron Paul admits that there is very little difference between the mainstream candidates, Democrat or
Republican. He said, “Foreign policy never changed. Domestic fiscal policy, the welfare
entitlement system never changes.” For years, both parties have been double teaming the American
people. One gets in power and further advances the New World Order agenda, and then falls out of
favor and passes the baton to the other. Both parties are supported by special interest groups, and
many are waking up to the fact that the Democrats aren't going to save us either. Paul's support is
diverse and transcends party lines. We don't have to choose the lesser of the evils, because with
Paul we have the right man with the right message. He is shattering the fake left-right paradigm and
dismantling the establishment. While most candidates including Obama grovel to AIPAC, Paul is not
bought and paid for by any special interest groups, corporations, or countries. He is the only one
of the top candidates in either party that doesn't have any connections or affiliation to the
Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Obama gives speeches to CFR members and at CFR sponsored events.
His top foreign policy adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, has intimate ties to both the CFR and
co-founded the Trilateral Commission. Obama has tried to paint himself as an outsider, but has
surrounded himself with consummate insiders and political heavy weights. It's always the same people
behind the scenes. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
The best is Huckabee or McCain. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Really the best candidate dropped (romney)out so were are all screwed. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I think that obama should win because he actually talks to kids and sees what they think should
happen instead of just talking to adults. Also Ron Paul says he wants change but in real life he
doesn't |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ron Paul might say he wants change, but the reality is, want it or not, even if he did get elected
he could never make the changes he says he wants. A vote for Ron Paul is a vote thrown straight
into the garbage can. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
08 Feb 2008 23:29
Sign In
For and Against Recent Activity
