Ron Paul Wins New Orlean Straw Poll.

[revelarts]

Ron Paul overwhelmingly won the 2011 RLC Presidential Straw Poll, gaining 612 (39.69%) of a total of 1542 votes! Jon Huntsman came in second with 382 votes (24.77%), Michele Bachmann was third with 191 votes (12.39%), while last year’s winner Mitt Romney slipped to fifth with only 74 votes (4.80%).


http://www.ronpaul.com/images/rlc2011-strawpoll.gif


Paul wins RLC straw poll; Romney fades to fifth
By Domenico Montanaro, Political Reporter, NBC News

NEW ORLEANS -- Ron Paul won the straw poll here at the Republican Leadership Conference overwhelmingly with 612 votes, drawing big boos and some quieter chants of "Ron Paul." Jon Huntsman finished a surprising second with 382 votes, despite being a late scratch because of a "bad cold." Michele Bachmann was third with 191 votes.

Herman Cain was fourth with 104 votes. Mitt Romney, the presumed front runner, who won the straw poll here a year ago, faded to fifth with 74 votes. Tim Pawlenty finished with just 18 votes, fourth from the bottom of the 12-person ballot, just ahead of Gary Johnson (10), Buddy Roemer (9), and Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (2).

Paul’s ardent followers packed the ballroom here before, during, and just after his speech, but they were barely seen listening to other speeches. They have organized to win straw polls at many other conservative events as well.

Romney, who did not attend this year or last, was criticized here for not signing onto a legislative pledge from anti-abortion-rights group Susan B. Anthony List. The group released the list of presidential candidates who signed onto the pledge yesterday afternoon. Most signed on; Romney did not.

That drew an attack from Rick Santorum:

"This past Monday night at the Republican Presidential Debate, I was asked about Governor Romney's pro-life conversion, and I gave him the benefit of the doubt," the former Pennsylvania senator running for president said in a statement."I apparently spoke too soon. It is incredibly disappointing that Governor Romney chose not to defend those who cannot defend themselves."

Romney's campaign responded in a statement to First Read this way:

"Governor Romney pledged in the last campaign that he would be a pro-life president and of course he pledges it today. However, this well intentioned effort has some potentially unforeseen consequences and he does not feel he could in good conscience sign it. Gov. Romney has been a strong supporter of the SBA List in the past and he looks forward to continue working with them to promote a culture of life."

A Romney adviser said on background that the SBA language goes too far, and would cut off funding to VA hospitals:

"The language in the pledge is to 'permanently end all taxpayer funding of abortion' (which the Gov. supports) but then goes on to say 'and recipients of federal funds with affiliates that perform or fund abortions' -- which you can see is very over-reaching and would include hospitals across the country."

[Kathianne]

which poll was that? I missed the link or referral back.

[Kathianne]

I think I may have to go back and edit that first post, but I'm assuming he was referring to this?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_usa_campaign_poll


...
Paul, Bachmann and Cain addressed the New Orleans conference on Friday. Huntsman was scheduled to speak but canceled because of illness. Romney and Tim Pawlenty, the former Minnesota governor who earned 18 votes, skipped the event.

Former House of Representatives Speaker Newt Gingrich, who spoke on Thursday, had 69 votes. Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, who says she is considering becoming a candidate, had 41 votes. She also did not appear at the conference.

Former Senator Rick Santorum, who also spoke on Friday, had 30 votes.

Romney narrowly won the straw poll at the annual conference last year over Paul, but the survey has not been a reliable predictor of success. Bill Frist, who was Senate Republican leader at the time, won in 2006 and failed to ever get his campaign off the ground.

Texas Governor George W. Bush won in 1998, two years before he captured the White House.

[revelarts]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/18/us-usa-campaign-poll-idUSTRE75H1YX20110618

here's one

the 1st ref is from his site
the other is from MsNbc
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/06/18/6888893-paul-wins-rlc-straw-poll-romney-fades-to-fifth

[Kathianne]

thanks for editing yourself, Rev. Makes it seem and feel more fair. :thumb:

[logroller]

Eh, nothing to stick a fork into. Everything changes when the campaign juggernaut runs it's course. Elections are about overpowering your opponent(s), not the "voice of the people". Hopefully news like this adds some digits to Paul's campaign fund (he'll need it), but that's about it!

[revelarts]

RSR, from the other thread

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/xKITUOl0NBc?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xKITUOl0NBc?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>


You Don't like him because he said this?


What he said Is True. And the truth does make us mad sometimes but if we are wise we'll deal with reality the way it really is.


here's Micheal Sheaure the former head of the CIA Bin Laden Unit Telling the truth.

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/qZNfuIvtLos?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/qZNfuIvtLos?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

Ron Paul didn't make it up he was reading the intel reports and going by the recommendations, which happen to agree with his default foreign policy position.

Sheure was with Ron Paul the day after the Debate you posted. The press Conference where Ron Paul gave Guilanni a group of Books to read.
Among them was the 9-11 commission report which makes the point the Ron Paul repeats.

He also memtion the book "Dying to win" about suicide attacks here's aprodcut description from Amazon

Suicide terrorism is rising around the world, but there is great confusion as to why. In this paradigm-shifting analysis, University of Chicago political scientist Robert Pape has collected groundbreaking evidence to explain the strategic, social, and individual factors responsible for this growing threat.

One of the world’s foremost authorities on the subject, Professor Pape has created the first comprehensive database of every suicide terrorist attack in the world from 1980 until today. With striking clarity and precision, Professor Pape uses this unprecedented research to debunk widely held misconceptions about the nature of suicide terrorism and provide a new lens that makes sense of the threat we face.

FACT: Suicide terrorism is not primarily a product of Islamic fundamentalism.

FACT: The world’s leading practitioners of suicide terrorism are the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka–a secular, Marxist-Leninist group drawn from Hindu families.

FACT: Ninety-five percent of suicide terrorist attacks occur as part of coherent campaigns organized by large militant organizations with significant public support.

FACT: Every suicide terrorist campaign has had a clear goal that is secular and political: to compel a modern democracy to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland.

FACT: Al-Qaeda fits the above pattern. Although Saudi Arabia is not under American military occupation per se, one major objective of al-Qaeda is the expulsion of U.S. troops from the Persian Gulf region, and as a result there have been repeated attacks by terrorists loyal to Osama bin Laden against American troops in Saudi Arabia and the region as a whole.

FACT: Despite their rhetoric, democracies–including the United States–have routinely made concessions to suicide terrorists. Suicide terrorism is on the rise because terrorists have learned that it’s effective.

In this wide-ranging analysis, Professor Pape offers the essential tools to forecast when some groups are likely to resort to suicide terrorism and when they are not. He also provides the first comprehensive demographic profile of modern suicide terrorist attackers. With data from more than 460 such attackers–including the names of 333–we now know that these individuals are not mainly poor, desperate criminals or uneducated religious fanatics but are often well-educated, middle-class political activists.

More than simply advancing new theory and facts, these pages also answer key questions about the war on terror:

• Are we safer now than we were before September 11?
• Was the invasion of Iraq a good counterterrorist move?
• Is al-Qaeda stronger now than it was before September 11?

Professor Pape answers these questions with analysis grounded in fact, not politics, and recommends concrete ways for today’s states to fight and prevent terrorist attacks. Military options may disrupt terrorist operations in the short term, but a lasting solution to suicide terrorism will require a comprehensive, long-term approach–one that abandons visions of empire and relies on a combined strategy of vigorous homeland security, nation building in troubled states, and greater energy independence.

For both policy makers and the general public, Dying to Win transcends speculation with systematic scholarship, making it one of the most important political studies of recent time.

He Also Mentions Blowback by Chamlers Johnson

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/blt9_hy1di4?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/blt9_hy1di4?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

The reality is we can't play cowboy all over the world and expect EVERYBODY EVERYWHERE to love us.

If I start cussing & pissing on people's threads on this board and i then get some of the same BUT wonder why they are upset, or say "it's because of their religion", somethings wrong with me.

It's not about our "freedoms" primarily. Yes Islam is a factor, but it's not the biggest or the 1st catalyst. It's our foreign policies ways that they use get the recruits, not the playboy channel and reruns of the Murphey Brown show.

[Kathianne]

I care about the candidate, not just his words or even voting record. Some things I agree with Paul on, many not so much. This though is why I would never vote for him and why I'll keep adding such to inform those that don't know:

http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/archived-articles/../2007/11/the_ron_paul_campaign_and_its.html


November 14, 2007
The Ron Paul Campaign and its Neo-Nazi Supporters
By Andrew Walden
When some in a crowd of anti-war activists meeting at Democrat National Committee HQ in June, 2005 suggested Israel was behind the 9-11 attacks, DNC Chair Howard Dean was quick to get behind the microphones and denounce them saying: "such statements are nothing but vile, anti-Semitic rhetoric."

When KKK leader David Duke switched parties to run for Louisiana governor as a Republican in 1991, then-President George H W Bush responded sharply, saying, "When someone asserts the Holocaust never took place, then I don't believe that person ever deserves one iota of public trust. When someone has so recently endorsed Nazism, it is inconceivable that someone can reasonably aspire to a leadership role in a free society."

Ron Paul is different.

Rep Ron Paul (R-TX) is the only Republican candidate to demand immediate withdrawal from Iraq and blame US policy for creating Islamic terrorism. He has risen from obscurity and is beginning to raise millions of dollars in campaign contributions. Paul has no traction in the polls -- 7% of the vote in New Hampshire -- but he at one point had more cash on hand than John McCain. And now he is planning a $1.1 million New Hampshire media blitz just in time for the primary.

Ron Paul set an internet campaigning record raising more than $4 million in small on-line donations in one day, on November 5, 2007. But there are many questions about Paul's apparent unwillingness to reject extremist groups' public participation in his campaign and financial support of his November 5 "patriot money-bomb plot."

On October 26 nationally syndicated radio talk show host Michael Medved posted an "Open Letter to Rep. Ron Paul" on TownHall.com. It reads:


Dear Congressman Paul:

Your Presidential campaign has drawn the enthusiastic support of an imposing collection of Neo-Nazis, White Supremacists, Holocaust Deniers, 9/11 "Truthers" and other paranoid and discredited conspiracists.

Do you welcome- or repudiate - the support of such factions?

More specifically, your columns have been featured for several years in the American Free Press -a publication of the nation's leading Holocaust Denier and anti-Semitic agitator, Willis Carto. His book club even recommends works that glorify the Nazi SS, and glowingly describe the "comforts and amenities" provided for inmates of Auschwitz.

Have your columns appeared in the American Free Press with your knowledge and approval?

As a Presidential candidate, will you now disassociate yourself, clearly and publicly, from the poisonous propaganda promoted in such publications?

As a guest on my syndicated radio show, you answered my questions directly and fearlessly.
Will you now answer these pressing questions, and eliminate all associations between your campaign and some of the most loathsome fringe groups in American society?

Along with my listeners (and many of your own supporters), I eagerly await your response.

Respectfully, Michael Medved

Medved has received no official response from the Paul campaign.

there's much more, some more disturbing with links at site.

[revelarts]

Kath, i can't defend not giving back the funds.
He said he wanted to use the Money for good. Taking that power out of there hands.
That's it.
----
The American Free Press has some wird carp. BUT, and this is a HUGE BUT, Ron Paul's writings reflex only HIS position. which is very public and NOt racist, NOT Anti-Semitic, not what ever other darkness ran in that paper.

-----


Here's Ron Paul Spewing his hate for blacks at DL Hugley.

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/zkVUiaj4C24?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/zkVUiaj4C24?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>


________
When it comes to knowing the person you vote for how about this.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar


...George Bush's grandfather, the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany.

The Guardian has obtained confirmation from newly discovered files in the US National Archives that a firm of which Prescott Bush was a director was involved with the financial architects of Nazism.

His business dealings, which continued until his company's assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act, has led more than 60 years later to a civil action for damages being brought in Germany against the Bush family by two former slave labourers at Auschwitz and to a hum of pre-election controversy.

The evidence has also prompted one former US Nazi war crimes prosecutor to argue that the late senator's action should have been grounds for prosecution for giving aid and comfort to the enemy. ...


Sarasota Herald-Tribune 11/11/2000:

"The Bush family fortune came from the Third Reich."
-John Loftus, former US Justice Dept. Nazi War Crimes investigator and President of the Florida Holocaust Museum

4/14/1990 New York Times quotes President George Bush as stating, "Lets forgive the Nazi war criminals."

Who made Hitler?
Bush Finances Hitler.
http://www.ciagents.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=384

"George W's grandfather Prescott Bush was among the chief American fundraisers for the Nazi Party in the 1930s and '40s. In return he was handsomely rewarded with plenty of financial opportunities from the Nazis helping to create the fortune and legacy that his son George inherited."

[revelarts]

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/RKBlk1Vpeuw?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/RKBlk1Vpeuw?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

[Kathianne]

Sorry Rev. his writings and his publication of those types of writings, under his name went on for years. Huge money maker. He attempted some of the same 'compassion' last election cycle, well covered at American Thinker in this piece and others. I'm quite certain you are familiar with American Thinking? It's quite libertarian, while not being the sort of folks that write on Stormfront or follow Alex Jones. There are reasons many thinking libertarians totally distanced themselves from Ron Paul last cycle and will continue to do so this one.

I suggest that people read, watch, and listen all they can on the candidates. I don't want to know if someone running for office is an angel or devil in every aspect of their lives. I do think the media owes us what they can bring out on someone with the problems Weiner did that certainly left him open to blackmail. Same with Paul, silence is not good if the guy is more than he appears to be. The stuff is there, has been, but CNN didn't report until TNR did, nearly a year after American Thinker began.

[logroller]

Kath, i can't defend not giving back the funds.
He said he wanted to use the Money for good. Taking that power out of there hands.
That's it.
----
The American Free Press has some wird carp. BUT, and this is a HUGE BUT, Ron Paul's writings reflex only HIS position. which is very public and NOt racist, NOT Anti-Semitic, not what ever other darkness ran in that paper.

-----


Here's Ron Paul Spewing his hate for blacks at DL Hugley.

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/zkVUiaj4C24?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/zkVUiaj4C24?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>


________
When it comes to knowing the person you vote for how about this.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar


Sorry Rev. his writings and his publication of those types of writings, under his name went on for years. Huge money maker. He attempted some of the same 'compassion' last election cycle, well covered at American Thinker in this piece and others. I'm quite certain you are familiar with American Thinking? It's quite libertarian, while not being the sort of folks that write on Stormfront or follow Alex Jones. There are reasons many thinking libertarians totally distanced themselves from Ron Paul last cycle and will continue to do so this one.

I suggest that people read, watch, and listen all they can on the candidates. I don't want to know if someone running for office is an angel or devil in every aspect of their lives. I do think the media owes us what they can bring out on someone with the problems Weiner did that certainly left him open to blackmail. Same with Paul, silence is not good if the guy is more than he appears to be. The stuff is there, has been, but CNN didn't report until TNR did, nearly a year after American Thinker began.
OMG, whats this about war crimes... trading with the third reich, whenever, whoever!!! The war criminals were given a trial at Niuremburg, so I don't see the relevance in any measurable fashion. The fact Paul has profited from his publications doesn't make him any more culpable than any other media producer. That'd be like holding jimnyc responsible for what RSR posts on here. Media provides a venue for expression and learning, rather or not it provides it to everyone, or anyone, is irrelevant. The fact Paul profited from such makes him an opportunist; but last I checked America is the land of opportunity. I personally find militant neoconservative groups like the KKK, Muslim Brotherhood, and the Black Panthers morally corrupt and misguided: but I respect their right to speak, read, write or believe as they wish-- so long as it doesn't adversely effect another's right to do the same.

Politically, if we were to go around ruling out every person who talked about something misguided we'd have null$ list. Its NOT that regulating speech is a bad idea; it just that it CANNOT be effectively regulated, because thinking, believing and speaking aren't bound by scarcity. Me talking doesn't prevent anyone else from doing it-- social norms and the morals they represent do.

I watched Paul speak and he testifies to documented reports and quasi-public documents. Guiliani gets all offended because the writing was/ is on the wall about 9/11-- it was a retaliatory attack our govt anticipated, considered and allowed to occur through pursuing the same interventionist policies.
Why, One may ask....... because our govt, as an entity in and of itself, benefits-- both fiscally and through usurpation of additional powers. Govt influence and control has grown significantly, both foreign and abroad; and the solution to the additional problems they help create is more govt growth-- its just ludicrous. Both the parties play against eachother, where one's failure helps the other; as though their only job is raising funds and talking points to get (re)elected. I'm just curious, can someone show me a law which has been passed by the current Congress which is sound and necessary?

[gabosaurus]

9/11-- it was a retaliatory attack our govt anticipated, considered and allowed to occur through pursuing the same interventionist policies.

The 100 percent truth. The Bushies will never admit though.

[logroller]

The 100 percent truth. The Bushies will never admit though.

. Maybe I'm not sure what a "Bushie" , but voted for Bush both times.

[NightTrain]

. Maybe I'm not sure what a "Bushie" , but voted for Bush both times.

Then you are a Bushie. Also, you are a ConRep, a Nazi, a NeoCon, etc.

Also, according to Gabby, you are an uneducated hick and you'll be doing yourself a favor by acknowledging her superior intelligence.

Just like the rest of us peons.

[revelarts]

LOG,
See I wasn't going to go to the responsibility of those on this board to censor people who say weird stuff. You said it very well. I could accuse Kath, as a mod, of holding to all of the racist and anti sememtic post that pop up here. She hasn't blocked, repudiated, or denounced in the strongest terms every ugly post and I'd suppose shed claim she didn't even see a few. Even though she does see the board nearly everyday. How can she volunteer for a broad that allows that kinda of stuff. :eek:
Should I be Outraged at your obvious racism Kath? I think I am. MM HMUPH.
Outraged and Offended at your Years of watching so many Racist, anti Semitic and ANTI AMERICAN post just go by unchallenged. Sure you've said a few things once in awhile but IT's Clear from the record that REALLY ...

but no, I know better, Your own writings make a lie of the accusation. period.


Look
I don't want to minimize the content of the RON PAUL pub but To me Paul's own Spoken and written words, His consistent and principled actions show me more of his character than a publications he didn't even write the articles for. Frankly I, like Wolf Blitzer in the clip, don't see or hear anything like that from Paul... Ever. I can't say the same for a FEW other politicians.
You folks know if i smell rat activities I call it like I smell it.
Ron Paul SHOULD have Known what was in the publications, He has been affiliated with the far right, the far libertarian and with Ronald Reagan, Denis Kucinich, Ralph Nader, the constitution party and has spoken to orgs of all strips.

He says that Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King are 2 of his Heroes. I can't think of many here that have said that even. Based on what I've seen of Paul There is an Old stentch of something..., a high tolerance for other racist/anti-semetics maybe, but I just don't smell it on him. At All.
That's my honest take on the guy.

Kath we may disagree here... Again... But we've all got our own paths.

[gabosaurus]

Then you are a Bushie. Also, you are a ConRep, a Nazi, a NeoCon, etc.

Also, according to Gabby, you are an uneducated hick and you'll be doing yourself a favor by acknowledging her superior intelligence.

Just like the rest of us peons.

http://i54.tinypic.com/fwlzjl.jpg

[Kathianne]

LOG,
See I wasn't going to go to the responsibility of those on this board to censor people who say weird stuff. You said it very well. I could accuse Kath, as a mod, of holding to all of the racist and anti sememtic post that pop up here. She hasn't blocked, repudiated, or denounced in the strongest terms every ugly post and I'd suppose shed claim she didn't even see a few. Even though she does see the board nearly everyday. How can she volunteer for a broad that allows that kinda of stuff. :eek:
Should I be Outraged at your obvious racism Kath? I think I am. MM HMUPH.
Outraged and Offended at your Years of watching so many Racist, anti Semitic and ANTI AMERICAN post just go by unchallenged. Sure you've said a few things once in awhile but IT's Clear from the record that REALLY ...

but no, I know better, Your own writings make a lie of the accusation. period.


...

Well to be honest, I just dumped some of JT's rants into the cage. Last I checked I don't hold public office and I sure as sugar am not making any money off of this site-big difference.

I don't own this site, it doesn't have my name on it. For that matter, the owner's name isn't there, at the top. When we post, unless it is for moderation, we post our own opinion, not that of the board.

Rev, you are just spinning his past. Now if you wish to say, which he hasn't, that he deeply regrets all those years of publications and wants to donate some of that money to ??? He continued to take money from groups associated with Stormfront, Alex Jones, and Pat Buchanan's groups in the last cycle. He refused to repudiate any of them or their espoused views.

Not someone that should be Senator, much less President. The firs though is the choice of the people of TX, the second is open to us all.

[gabosaurus]

Well to be honest, I just dumped some of JT's rants into the cage.


I personally think J.T. should be dumped into a cage. Without internet access.
That is just me, of course. :p

[Kathianne]

I personally think J.T. should be dumped into a cage. Without internet access.
That is just me, of course. :p

Well I just work here, but am bucking for supreme decider. Unfortunately I keep being told, "No." :laugh2:

[logroller]

Well to be honest, I just dumped some of JT's rants into the cage. Last I checked I don't hold public office and I sure as sugar am not making any money off of this site-big difference.

I don't own this site, it doesn't have my name on it. For that matter, the owner's name isn't there, at the top. When we post, unless it is for moderation, we post our own opinion, not that of the board.

Rev, you are just spinning his past. Now if you wish to say, which he hasn't, that he deeply regrets all those years of publications and wants to donate some of that money to ??? He continued to take money from groups associated with Stormfront, Alex Jones, and Pat Buchanan's groups in the last cycle. He refused to repudiate any of them or their espoused views.

Not someone that should be Senator, much less President. The firs though is the choice of the people of TX, the second is open to us all.
Hmm, that's a fun premise; consider the alternative-
What if you did make money of the site, would it change your mod style?
It's all about traffic right? So it would benefit you to see more people on more time. Take the rep system; say there was a competition where whoever gets the most rep pts per quarter gets a modest bonus, like $50 -- people would be aligning themselves with others; just flat out hustling to get that $.Posting more, surfing the site more, PM people to draw attention to certain threads to increase the chances of more rep in the slim possibility for a $50 reward; meanwhile the owner rakes it in. Its a game really, only with people led about thinking its reality-- media knows this and preys upon it--& so do politicians. Taking money (and/or votes) for lip service and not doing what those who gave it to him wanted...that about sums up national politics---don't hate the player, hate the game!

[revelarts]

Well to be honest, I just dumped some of JT's rants into the cage. Last I checked I don't hold public office and I sure as sugar am not making any money off of this site-big difference.

I don't own this site, it doesn't have my name on it. For that matter, the owner's name isn't there, at the top. When we post, unless it is for moderation, we post our own opinion, not that of the board.

Rev, you are just spinning his past. Now if you wish to say, which he hasn't, that he deeply regrets all those years of publications and wants to donate some of that money to ??? He continued to take money from groups associated with Stormfront, Alex Jones, and Pat Buchanan's groups in the last cycle. He refused to repudiate any of them or their espoused views.

Not someone that should be Senator, much less President. The firs though is the choice of the people of TX, the second is open to us all.
I love the way folks sometimes like to re-characterize my positions.
..Sigh...
And So we disagree.

But as far as the censorship thing is concerned i was just kidding. I suppose if the board was flooded with a lot of truly hateful stuff then there might need for real heavy handed moderation but Hey, a few shady characters with regular disturbing comments... it's the price of liberty and all that. It also serves a reality check. Plus that's what the ignore button is for IMO.
But it's Jims Board, Like a Bar if he doesn't like the customers attitude he can kick um out.

Do I even want to know what "Caging" is?

[Little-Acorn]

So the conclusions we can draw from this, along with Ron Paul's long-established history of winning minor straw polls and then losing major elections by huge margins, is that he is good at two things: (1) Having followers who stack straw polls where a relatively few extra votes in his favor makes a disproportionately huge difference; and (2) Losing major elections by equally huge differences where a few extra votes isn't nearly enough to alter the outcome or even make him look like anything more than a fringe candidate with little appeal.

Thanks for telling us about the latest example..... :salute:

[revelarts]

So the conclusions we can draw from this, along with Ron Paul's long-established history of winning minor straw polls and then losing major elections by huge margins, is that he is good at two things: (1) Having followers who stack straw polls where a relatively few extra votes in his favor makes a disproportionately huge difference; and (2) Losing major elections by equally huge differences where a few extra votes isn't nearly enough to alter the outcome or even make him look like anything more than a fringe candidate with little appeal.

Thanks for telling us about the latest example..... :salute:

Funny that when Palin or McCain or Romney or Trump win a straw poll it's legit news. But Paul wins and it's a joke? I think there's something wrong with you for not taking it for what it is a legit reprentation of a solid base. If Romney had the supportters he would have won as he did last year. If CAIN or Bachman had a serious group of supporters they would have won.
The countries going to crap and a guy who's got a record NOT doing the status quo and has voted consistently in a constitutional way for 20 years on a national level is a freak show?

He wins a straw poll and it's a joke?
I'm sorry for you. I'm sorry for the country.
I tell what's a joke, people who say they want a candidate that follows the constitution then one shows up and they don't support him.
"oh he might be a racist"
"Oh he might bring the troop home and Alquida will get us"
"oh he'll cut to much of the defense budget, I know we can't afford it but if we don't spend it we might not be a world power anymore... like well, Russia."
"Oh he doesn't look presidential"
"Oh Yes I want the constitution... but he wants all of it, i only want the parts the democrats don't like"

"OH --fill in the blank--- "

I've yet to hear a rational excuse not to support the man.
I don't agree with everything he say but who agrees with everything.


But do what want Laugh it up.
Bushbama wil turn in Bushbamoromney
More of the same big gov't crap with a republican face on it.

--Sigh--

All bet ANYBODY HERE $10 that if we get ANY Republican that's currently running Other than Paul that:

Indefinite detentions will continue
the TSA will continue to expand
Health care bill will say in place
the wasteful war on Drugs will continue full bore and maybe expand
the Bases in Iraq and Afghanstan will remain fully staffed slow burn war will continue,
(If Romney gets in and were still in Libya that war will continue)
legalized/illegal wire taps will continue
legalized/illegal home searches will continue

my only 2 conditions are if the Economy get decidedly worse, at that point all bets are off. it will be the grace of God to see which way things go if the bottom completely falls out.
And if China makes military alliances with our enemy nation states. we'll probably back off at that point.


not part of the bet but,
I predict that if anyone other than Paul (& maybe Bachman or Cain) is elected.
that this status Quo cut spending 1 billion but overspend 100 billion.
The new status Quo to Search detain harass everyone at home at the bus, train , airports becuase it's the CiC's job to keep America safe but not free.
The new status Quo 5 preventative wars where we pay the enemy becuase we don't "cut and run" crazy talk.
Will continue until we bust.


but laugh it up,
Rome is burning and the status quo won't do anymore IMHO.

[logroller]

So the conclusions we can draw from this, along with Ron Paul's long-established history of winning minor straw polls and then losing major elections by huge margins, is that he is good at two things: (1) Having followers who stack straw polls where a relatively few extra votes in his favor makes a disproportionately huge difference; and (2) Losing major elections by equally huge differences where a few extra votes isn't nearly enough to alter the outcome or even make him look like anything more than a fringe candidate with little appeal.

Thanks for telling us about the latest example..... :salute:

and thank you for your mainstream media bias. Way to keep that republican vs democrat train rolling along-- it's doing wonders for our country!:rolleyes:

[logroller]

Funny that when Palin or McCain or Romney or Trump win a straw poll it's legit news. But Paul wins and it's a joke? I think there's something wrong with you for not taking it for what it is a legit reprentation of a solid base. If Romney had the supportters he would have won as he did last year. If CAIN or Bachman had a serious group of supporters they would have won.
The countries going to crap and a guy who's got a record NOT doing the status quo and has voted consistently in a constitutional way for 20 years on a national level is a freak show?

He wins a straw poll and it's a joke?
I'm sorry for you. I'm sorry for the country.
I tell what's a joke, people who say they want a candidate that follows the constitution then one shows up and they don't support him.
"oh he might be a racist"
"Oh he might bring the troop home and Alquida will get us"
"oh he'll cut to much of the defense budget, I know we can't afford it but if we don't spend it we might not be a world power anymore... like well, Russia."
"Oh he doesn't look presidential"
"Oh Yes I want the constitution... but he wants all of it, i only want the parts the democrats don't like"

"OH --fill in the blank--- "

I've yet to hear a rational excuse not to support the man.
I don't agree with everything he say but who agrees with everything.


But do what want Laugh it up.
Bushbama wil turn in Bushbamoromney
More of the same big gov't crap with a republican face on it.

--Sigh--

All bet ANYBODY HERE $10 that if we get ANY Republican that's currently running Other than Paul that:

Indefinite detentions will continue
the TSA will continue to expand
Health care bill will say in place
the wasteful war on Drugs will continue full bore and maybe expand
the Bases in Iraq and Afghanstan will remain fully staffed slow burn war will continue,
(If Romney gets in and were still in Libya that war will continue)
legalized/illegal wire taps will continue
legalized/illegal home searches will continue

my only 2 conditions are if the Economy get decidedly worse, at that point all bets are off. it will be the grace of God to see which way things go if the bottom completely falls out.
And if China makes military alliances with our enemy nation states. we'll probably back off at that point.


not part of the bet but,
I predict that if anyone other than Paul (& maybe Bachman or Cain) is elected.
that this status Quo cut spending 1 billion but overspend 100 billion.
The new status Quo to Search detain harass everyone at home at the bus, train , airports becuase it's the CiC's job to keep America safe but not free.
The new status Quo 5 preventative wars where we pay the enemy becuase we don't "cut and run" crazy talk.
Will continue until we bust.


but laugh it up,
Rome is burning and the status quo won't do anymore IMHO.

I'll double up that bet--2:1 odds. Everybody wants to cast him aside because he would try to implement a govt of, for, and by the people; a marked change from govt over the people The real strawpoll is how many eligible voters don't vote. Those people have already conceded to being ruled over; Americans need to fix the country ourselves; and govt should allow us to do it, not do it for us. Its like raising kids, you can't lord over them, wiping their noses for the rest of their lives; we need only ensure they have a safe environment to do as they wish-- be it success or failure.

[revelarts]

Well the media has decided who we are not supposed to vote for by Ignoring a poll winning candidate.
Funny how everyone is upset at the dismisive treatment of the MSM by the tea party but neary a word about the DIs -treament of Ron Paul.
Sarah Palin isn't even running and she gets more press than the Tied Winner of the Iowa Straw poll.
MSM stupid and controlled


<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5vRuy0m7IjA?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5vRuy0m7IjA?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

[Kathianne]

It's simple, he's unelectable. He says many things that many do agree with. He's principled on his principles. So is Kuchinich and he's unelectable too.

[Prince Lemon]

Ron Paul is a great guy,but his age is a problem to win as a president.If he were in his 50s to early 60s,that would do.

[revelarts]

It's simple, he's unelectable. He says many things that many do agree with. He's principled on his principles. So is Kuchinich and he's unelectable too.

even if that were true it's not the media's job to make that call and ignore winning candidates. let the voters decide. Give winners the platform due based on the VOTES in the legitimate polls not their political opinion. The reason more people are voting for him now is because they've begun to HEAR him. It's more difficult to get more votes and become "electable" if he can't be heard. And Isn't shown as the WINNER he is. You'd think that if he was not a threat they'd give him more time not less so he would self destruct. Makes me think that some see him as a real THREAT.
As far as Electable goes If we could elect Bush TWICE I don't see a problem electing Paul.

How Much more electable would Paul sound if the media came out and said
"well Paul winning a few Straw polls shows that he is a Clear Front runner and someone to Contend with early on this election season. How are His Numbers Vs Obama Chet? Well It still early But..."

[Joyful HoneyBee]

I'm sick of people ranting about Ron Paul being a quack and accusing him of being out of touch with reality. He's the only senator who has stood up for the interest of the American people each and every time he has voted. I truly don't get it. It's as if people love wallowing in the muck and fear that if we get a president with our true interest on the forefront of his platform, then we'll have nothing to bellyache about anymore. Maybe that's it in a nutshell - if the problems are solved, then life might become too boring for some.

RON PAUL - 2012

[Thunderknuckles]

Political reality:
He's unelectable.
Period.

The Libertarian Party needs another champion.

[fj1200]

Well if only a straw poll meant anything.

[Prince Lemon]

Political reality:
He's unelectable.
Period.

The Libertarian Party needs another champion.
His old age is an obstacle to make him win for the president.We indeed need a guy like R.Paul who is young and tough.

[Dilloduck]

When I hear someone described as unelectable I'm further convinced that our system of choosing who represents us is inbred and corrupt. Is it any wonder that while we have two political parties we still end up with the same old failed system over and over ?

[revelarts]

Daily Show NAILS the MSM on PAUL.

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/3EY5Ofcxjs0?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" height="390" width="640"></object>

[fj1200]

That was hilarious. He's got no chance though.

[revelarts]

That was hilarious. He's got no chance though.
He'd have a chance if Half the people who say they like him "but he can't win" would only stop nay saying and just support him.

It's wierd, I wonder of a poll of the people here. IF by some Act of God Ron Paul became the Republican Nominee.
would those who rag on Paul here, vote for him over Obama? or would they stay home and say Ohh "Ron Paul can't win, I don't like him anyway, even though I agree with him on 7 points out of 10, and he talks funny."

[fj1200]

Has he ever polled above 10%? A couple of outlier polls but he has zero momentum above his core.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html

I really don't think his positions are ones that most will support.

[revelarts]

Has he ever polled above 10%? A couple of outlier polls but he has zero momentum above his core.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html

I really don't think his positions are ones that most will support.

Why did I know you would avoid the question FJ?

it's a simple question buddy. c'mon would you vote for him?

[fj1200]

Why did I know you would avoid the question FJ?

it's a simple question buddy. c'mon would you vote for him?

Sorry didn't realize that was a real question; sure I'd vote for him after all is said and done, I voted for McCain after all.

[revelarts]

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/gJLjni29lw8?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/gJLjni29lw8?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

[fj1200]

Well taking out Moore is low hanging fruit but he did well for the most part, I think he is too isolationist for most of the US.

[revelarts]

Well taking out Moore is low hanging fruit but he did well for the most part, I think he is too isolationist for most of the US.

See I hear people say that But I always thought that "isolationist" meant almost NO contact with the outside world. so I don't get the complaint about Paul Here. (maybe I equate it to much to "Xenophobe") But He wants what you've said you want "FreeTrade" with the world. What he doesn't want is to spend money on foreign wars. ANd to get entangled with all of their politics beyond the point of being an example of a free country.

SO it seems like People now use the term "isolationist" to mean anyone who doesn't think we need to use troops overseas everyday. At least that what come across to me.

By that standard Switzerland is isolationist, China is isolationist, Japan is isolationist.
Hasn't hurt them.
But unlike most of those counties Paul isn't an economic protectionist "isolationist". Just a military one. Protect the boarders 1st. We don't have as many oversea vital interest as some would pretend.. Libya.

[fj1200]

By that standard Switzerland is isolationist, China is isolationist, Japan is isolationist.
Hasn't hurt them.

Switzerland? :rolleyes: China is not isolationist, or at least doesn't want to be. Japan is constitutionally banned from not being isolationist. But it comes down to this I suppose, would the world be better off if the US was an isolationist country that didn't get involved in the affairs of the world?

[Gunny]

Ron Paul overwhelmingly won the 2011 RLC Presidential Straw Poll, gaining 612 (39.69%) of a total of 1542 votes! Jon Huntsman came in second with 382 votes (24.77%), Michele Bachmann was third with 191 votes (12.39%), while last year’s winner Mitt Romney slipped to fifth with only 74 votes (4.80%).


http://www.ronpaul.com/images/rlc2011-strawpoll.gif

Great. More stolen Republican votes.

Obama doesn't have to win. All the right has to do is lose.

[revelarts]

RON PAUL WINS CALIFORINIA STRAW POLL, WITH MORE VOTES THSN AS MANY VOTES THAN PERRY AND ROMNEY!!!!!
WOOO HOOO!!! THERE IS A CHANCE FOR HOPE AND CHANGE IN AMERICA... REVOLUTION
BACK TO CONSTITUTION

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/jr72oKxmVlo?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/jr72oKxmVlo?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

But the MSM plays it Down. Can't Completely ignore but they're trying.

[Psychoblues]

Ron Paul is the perfect candidate for rightist politics. Easy.

Psychoblues

[revelarts]

Pblues, um thats not a compliment is it?


<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/DcE8PTid6qU?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/DcE8PTid6qU?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/XG0jcNBzfwM?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/XG0jcNBzfwM?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>


<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/GG64xEq3ILs?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/GG64xEq3ILs?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

[revelarts]

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/srMJYO3Sz6Y?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" height="390" width="640">



</object>

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/2ORUWcfnf64?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/2ORUWcfnf64?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

[revelarts]

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/srMJYO3Sz6Y?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/srMJYO3Sz6Y?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

[revelarts]

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2011/09/florida-close.html#more

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/.a/6a0133f2dd8001970b015391f46458970b-800wi


Perry trails Obama 50-43, including a 53-40 deficit with independents. Other Republicans make it very close though. Romney trails only 46-45 and Ron Paul actually does just as well, trailing 45-44. 58% of undecideds in the Obama/Romney match and 72% in the Obama/Paul match disapprove of the President's job performance so odds are those folks would split against him in the end and put the state into the GOP column. This may be the most positive poll for Paul that we've ever conducted- he leads by 15 points with independents even as the rest of the Republican candidates trail Obama with that voting group. ...


http://freeindependentsun.com/republic/obama-v-paul-why-ron-paul-is-the-republicans-top-prospect-for-winning-the-presidency-in-2012/

[revelarts]

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/HpchEdtS0e4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[chloe]

Ron Paul was one of the few against the bailout:salute:

[logroller]

Ron Paul was one of the few against the bailout:salute:

Unfortunately, speaking out purely against the actions of Congress pretty much rules you out of the presidential election. You have to talk about the things Congress should do, not the bad things they've already done. The only time you can talk about the old crap is to support some new legislation. It makes sense really, no politicians want someone coming into office that believes most of what they do is unjustified or unnecessary-- it makes pork-barreled spending too difficult and reduces their ability to attract campaign donors. Just ask Obama-- his dumbass came into office criticizing the bailout enacted by Congress-- not too long after his approval rating started going down; fueled, no doubt, by campaign donors desire to keep Congressional appropriations favorable. Wanna play in DC, don't rock the boat-- its bad for morale.

[chloe]

Unfortunately, speaking out purely against the actions of Congress pretty much rules you out of the presidential election. You have to talk about the things Congress should do, not the bad things they've already done. The only time you can talk about the old crap is to support some new legislation. It makes sense really, no politicians want someone coming into office that believes most of what they do is unjustified or unnecessary-- it makes pork-barreled spending too difficult and reduces their ability to attract campaign donors. Just ask Obama-- his dumbass came into office criticizing the bailout enacted by Congress-- not too long after his approval rating started going down; fueled, no doubt, by campaign donors desire to keep Congressional appropriations favorable. Wanna play in DC, don't rock the boat-- its bad for morale.

Obama voted for the bailout, his actions didn't support his words.

[red states rule]

My only question regarding this thread is



:gives:


Ron Paul has as chance of winning the Repubican nomination as I do hitting the Mega Millions tonight

[logroller]

Obama voted for the bailout, his actions didn't support his words.

and he was elected President. We'll see how he does this go 'round. As for actions not supporting one's words-- he's a politician.

[chloe]

and he was elected President. We'll see how he does this go 'round. As for actions not supporting one's words-- he's a politician.

Obama said he was not going to do those politics as usual, people that elected him believed him.

Ron Paul was already in the political office when he did vote against the bailout so his actions and words were at least consistant.

[logroller]

Obama said he was not going to do those politics as usual, people that elected him believed him.

Ron Paul was already in the political office when he did vote against the bailout so his actions and words were at least consistant.

And Ron Paul doesn't get much support from his fellow Congressmen or the political machine in general. Like I said, dissent is bad for one's political aspirations.

I've voted for Paul, and I may do so again-- but my expectations for Paul actually being elected are slim to none. Just for arguments sake, what if he were? Would his radical views help build a stronger America or just further the instability?

[chloe]

And Ron Paul doesn't get much support from his fellow Congressmen or the political machine in general. Like I said, dissent is bad for one's political aspirations.

I've voted for Paul, and I may do so again-- but my expectations for Paul actually being elected are slim to none. Just for arguments sake, what if he were? Would his radical views help build a stronger America or just further the instability?

I don't think of most his views as radical, the military one happens to be an issue I don't issue with him on but otherwose I like alot of Ron Pauls political opinions.

[logroller]

I don't think of most his views as radical, the military one happens to be an issue I don't issue with him on but otherwose I like alot of Ron Pauls political opinions.

By radical, I mean against the status quo.

[revelarts]

Short ads

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/QhmF7sNlraU?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/QhmF7sNlraU?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/UUNIeOB0whI?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/UUNIeOB0whI?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/CtDBp1OrCwI?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/CtDBp1OrCwI?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>

[revelarts]

A FOX news Biz Report Sums up the Killing of AlWalaki with a REALITY CHECK

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Ho99a0rIL2M?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Ho99a0rIL2M?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>


<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/AW08qK0GhHs?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/AW08qK0GhHs?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>

[red states rule]

Again Rev I have to ask you

:gives:


Paul is a joke that long ago ceased to be funny

[revelarts]

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Yq8niGsuy9U?version=3&feature=player_detailpage"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Yq8niGsuy9U?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>

[jimnyc]

Again Rev I have to ask you

:gives:


Paul is a joke that long ago ceased to be funny

Like minds think alike... Paul is a conspiracy beanhead too.

[revelarts]

Still waiting for someone to take me up on my bet...

All bet ANYBODY HERE $10 that if we get ANY Republican that's currently running Other than Paul that:

Indefinite detentions will continue
the TSA will continue to expand
Health care bill will say in place
the wasteful war on Drugs will continue full bore and maybe expand
the Bases in Iraq and Afghanstan will remain fully staffed slow burn war will continue,
(If Romney gets in and were still in Libya that war will continue)
legalized/illegal wire taps will continue
legalized/illegal home searches will continue

my only 2 conditions are if the Economy get decidedly worse, at that point all bets are off. it will be the grace of God to see which way things go if the bottom completely falls out.
And if China makes military alliances with our enemy nation states. we'll probably back off at that point.


not part of the bet but,
I predict that if anyone other than Paul is elected.
that this status Quo cut spending 1 billion but overspend 100 billion.
The new status Quo to Search detain harass everyone at home at the bus, train , airports because it's the CiC's job to keep America safe but not free.
The new status Quo 5 preventative wars where we pay the enemy because we don't "cut and run" crazy talk.
Will continue until we bust.


but laugh it up,
Rome is burning and the status quo won't do anymore IMHO.

[red states rule]

Rev, if you were stuck on the Titantic after all the lifeboats had left - your solution to avoid drowning would have been to take big swallows

I have a better chance of winning the Republican nomination than he does - yet you keep trying

While I admire you determination I do question your sanity on this (and other) issues

[revelarts]

Nov. 16 (Bloomberg) --
Mitt Romney holds a commanding lead in the New Hampshire Republican presidential primary, more than double the support for his nearest rival, Texas congressman Ron Paul....


Romney, 64, is the preferred choice of 40 percent of likely New Hampshire primary voters in a Bloomberg News poll conducted Nov. 10-12.
Paul places second at 17 percent,
while former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is at 11 percent.
All the other candidates are below 10 percent.


http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-11-16/romney-leads-in-new-hampshire-where-voters-can-deliver-surprises.html

[red states rule]

http://www.cleveredfool.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Ron-Paul-Motivational-Poster-Funny.jpg?9d7bd4

[revelarts]

RON PAUL IN 4 WAY DEAD HEAT LEAD IN IOWA POLL

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/4_bwxJAsSFU?version=3&feature=player_detailpage"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/4_bwxJAsSFU?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>

[revelarts]

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/sjG7QdMJ3_Q?version=3&feature=player_detailpage"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sjG7QdMJ3_Q?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>

"DON'T YOU WISH ALL JOURNALISTS WERE THIS FAIR?!

I just watched a video from my local FOX 19 news, giving Ron Paul the coverage he deserves. In the video Ben Swann debunks three big myths about Ron Paul:

Myth 1: He's too radical.
Myth 2: He wants to let older people die.
Myth 3: He's an isolationist."

[red states rule]

Riddle me this

Q: Where do Ron Paul supporters have their meetups?

A: A house of mirrors.

[revelarts]

"With scant weeks to go before the Iowa caucuses, perpetually ignored-by-the-media Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul is making a deadly serious run for the top spot in the first-in-the-nation GOP contest. A little over a week ago, Paul passed Mitt Romney for second place in the state (http://www.mediaite.com/online/ronulan-attack-ron-paul-polling-2nd-in-iowa-ahead-of-mitt-romney/), 7 points behind frontrunner Newt Gingrich. A new poll from Public Policy Polling (http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2011/12/paul-closes-in-on-gingrich.html), however, has the congressman trailing Gingrich by a single point, 22%-21%, with Romney holding onto third with 16%.


While the media has already decided that this is now a two-man race between Gingrich and perpetual poll runner-up Mitt Romney, Ron Paul has emerged as a very real threat in Iowa, and from there, who knows?"

2822


Ron Paul's for real, When Cain and Perry were 2nd place they were all over the news, but media deciding who can win , similar to when Reagan ran believe it or not.

[red states rule]

"With scant weeks to go before the Iowa caucuses, perpetually ignored-by-the-media Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul is making a deadly serious run for the top spot in the first-in-the-nation GOP contest. A little over a week ago, Paul passed Mitt Romney for second place in the state (http://www.mediaite.com/online/ronulan-attack-ron-paul-polling-2nd-in-iowa-ahead-of-mitt-romney/), 7 points behind frontrunner Newt Gingrich. A new poll from Public Policy Polling (http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2011/12/paul-closes-in-on-gingrich.html), however, has the congressman trailing Gingrich by a single point, 22%-21%, with Romney holding onto third with 16%.


While the media has already decided that this is now a two-man race between Gingrich and perpetual poll runner-up Mitt Romney, Ron Paul has emerged as a very real threat in Iowa, and from there, who knows?"

2822


Ron Paul's for real, When Cain and Perry were 2nd place they were all over the news, but media deciding who can win , similar to when Reagan ran believe it or not.

Yea Ron Paul is for real Rev

A real nut, loon, and idiot

Keep believing he will win the nomination Rev

And also set out cookies and milk for Santa before you go to bed on Christmas Eve

[revelarts]

"With scant weeks to go before the Iowa caucuses, perpetually ignored-by-the-media Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul is making a deadly serious run for the top spot in the first-in-the-nation GOP contest. A little over a week ago, Paul passed Mitt Romney for second place in the state (http://www.mediaite.com/online/ronulan-attack-ron-paul-polling-2nd-in-iowa-ahead-of-mitt-romney/), 7 points behind frontrunner Newt Gingrich. A new poll from Public Policy Polling (http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2011/12/paul-closes-in-on-gingrich.html), however, has the congressman trailing Gingrich by a single point, 22%-21%, with Romney holding onto third with 16%.


While the media has already decided that this is now a two-man race between Gingrich and perpetual poll runner-up Mitt Romney, Ron Paul has emerged as a very real threat in Iowa, and from there, who knows?"

2822


Ron Paul's for real, When Cain and Perry were 2nd place they were all over the news, but media deciding who can win , similar to when Reagan ran believe it or not.




Yea Ron Paul is for real Rev

A real nut, loon, and idiot

Keep believing he will win the nomination Rev

And also set out cookies and milk for Santa before you go to bed on Christmas Eve


As long as you show up to vote for Ron Paul Against Obama, you can him names all you want.
and for those of you who think he's crazy blah blah think of it this way. give him 4 years to do what he can, then you vote in someone who will fight wars all over the world to keep you "safe" again. But let him cut the fat domestically if he can and bring some real change that Reagan and Newt and the Bush's talked about but did very little of. CUT THE GOV"T DOWN, for real.
just a thought.

[red states rule]

As long as you show up to vote for Ron Paul Against Obama, you can him names all you want.
and for those of you who think he's crazy blah blah think of it this way. give him 4 years to do what he can, then you vote in someone who will fight wars all over the world to keep you "safe" again. But let him cut the fat domestically if he can and bring some real change that Reagan and Newt and the Bush's talked about but did very little of. CUT THE GOV"T DOWN, for real.
just a thought.


Rev the idea of Ron Paul being the guy running against Obama is nothing more then a wet dream for you

Enjoy it for now, but sooner or late,r you and his other followers will have to return to the real world with the rest of us

Well, maybe you will still live in your fantasy world, but anyway, Ron Paul will be home watching the Republcian President being sworn in on 01/20/13 on TV - just like you

[red states rule]

As if Ron Paul had not given us all the proof needed to show he was fruit cake -he gives us this


This guy needs some serious help and I hope he gets it after he is knocked out of the race





Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul took some strong digs at his fellow candidates Friday, saying Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann “hates Muslims” and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum doesn’t like “gay people and Muslims.”

Paul made his comments on “The Tonight Show with Jay Leno” when the host asked him for his take on the other GOP contenders in the field.

On Bachmann, the Texas congressman said: “She doesn’t like Muslims, she hates Muslims, she wants to go get them.”

“Wow, okay, that’s not good,” Leno said.

And Santorum?

“Gay people and Muslims,” Paul answered.


http://www.theblaze.com/stories/ron-paul-on-michele-bachmann-she-hates-muslims/

[revelarts]

<header> Paul Leads in New Iowa Poll

</header> Newt’s “late” surge may have been, in fact, too early. A new poll from Public Policy Polling shows Ron Paul leading in Iowa, with Newt Gingrich falling to third place. The poll shows Paul at 23 percent, Mitt Romney at 20 percent, and Gingrich at 14 percent. Gingrich has fallen 13 percent in two weeks, and his net favorability rating has collapsed from +31 to -1. Meanwhile, Paul’s success has a lot to do with how hard he has been working in Iowa: 22 percent of Iowa voters say he’s run the best campaign, compared with just 8 percent for Gingrich and 5 percent for Romney. He also leads Romney 26–5 percent with voters who say it’s “very important” that a candidate spend a lot of time in the state and 29–19 percent with voters who have met a candidate in person.


http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2011/12/paul-leads-in-iowa.html

[jimnyc]

<header> Paul Leads in New Iowa Poll

</header> Newt’s “late” surge may have been, in fact, too early. A new poll from Public Policy Polling shows Ron Paul leading in Iowa, with Newt Gingrich falling to third place. The poll shows Paul at 23 percent, Mitt Romney at 20 percent, and Gingrich at 14 percent. Gingrich has fallen 13 percent in two weeks, and his net favorability rating has collapsed from +31 to -1. Meanwhile, Paul’s success has a lot to do with how hard he has been working in Iowa: 22 percent of Iowa voters say he’s run the best campaign, compared with just 8 percent for Gingrich and 5 percent for Romney. He also leads Romney 26–5 percent with voters who say it’s “very important” that a candidate spend a lot of time in the state and 29–19 percent with voters who have met a candidate in person.


http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2011/12/paul-leads-in-iowa.html

Seek other polls and you'll notice they are different. In other words, they're useless. While Gingrich is all but done in this poll, he's leading according to gallup. Either way, Paul ain't winning shit and sure as hell ain't getting the nomination.

[jimnyc]

As if Ron Paul had not given us all the proof needed to show he was fruit cake -he gives us this


This guy needs some serious help and I hope he gets it after he is knocked out of the race

I had read the Leno story too. It hurts him more than helps, makes him look cheap and not very presidential-like.

[revelarts]

Seek other polls and you'll notice they are different. In other words, they're useless. While Gingrich is all but done in this poll, he's leading according to gallup. Either way, Paul ain't winning shit and sure as hell ain't getting the nomination.

Is there ANy other republican candidate that gets this kind of hate talk?
Seriously?

Sure I say Perry's a crook, and Gingrirch is not conservative enough, but when people talk about 14 term republican Ron Paul being the nomonee it's like someone pulling a scab off of there backs or something.

But hey Just show up and Vote republican if Paul does win the nomination , anyone else will be more of the same old mess.

[jimnyc]

Is there ANy other republican candidate that gets this kind of hate talk?
Seriously?

Sure I say Perry's a crook, and Gingrirch is not conservative enough, but when people talk about 14 term republican Ron Paul being the nomonee it's like someone pulling a scab off of there backs or something.

But hey Just show up and Vote republican if Paul does win the nomination , anyone else will be more of the same old mess.

"hate" talk? Saying the man is a kook, based on his own words over the years, doesn't equate to "hate talk". And now you'll start with the exaggerating that we are sheep just voting for (R) because our choice isn't Paul? Silly, silly.

[Kathianne]

"hate" talk? Saying the man is a kook, based on his own words over the years, doesn't equate to "hate talk". And now you'll start with the exaggerating that we are sheep just voting for (R) because our choice isn't Paul? Silly, silly.

Indeed. He can't understand why people who may well agree with many of his ideas, won't vote for a racist xenophobe.

[jimnyc]

Indeed. He can't understand why people who may well agree with many of his ideas, won't vote for a racist xenophobe.

That's the thing. Sometimes I hear Paul talk and love his stances, but it's too hard at this point to forget all the crap that oozed out of his mouth over the years.

[revelarts]

"hate" talk? Saying the man is a kook, based on his own words over the years, doesn't equate to "hate talk". And now you'll start with the exaggerating that we are sheep just voting for (R) because our choice isn't Paul? Silly, silly.

define kook Jim. What's the mental condition. this is a fact based statement? not one based on a knee jerk and unexamined reaction to a rational statement Made by Paul that you never took the time to examine. No, you heard something that hit you wrong and called him a kook. cool.

Racist Xenophobe Kath?
Still waiting for you to post any racist quote directly from his hand or mouth in the 14+ years of service. But no you stand by those ghost written newsletters as the gold standard. you know better. Perry ever leave the N-head Club BTW?
Xenophobe = "not going to war overseas" in what dictionary? He wants to trade with all Countries. But that's not enough for some folks, we've got to have bases we can't afford all over the world like China, or Sweden or Germany and all those other horrible xenophobic nations.

Hate talk may not be the right term to use but it seems that some on the right do bust a gut emotionally over Paul And Blurp out something like KOOK! or RACIST.

When the Left Called Bush A KOOK and Idiot Or Racist what term did you use for the lefts reaction to him? maybe i'll use that.

[jimnyc]

define kook Jim. What's the mental condition. this is a fact based statement? not one based on a knee jerk and unexamined reaction to a rational statement Made by Paul that you never took the time to examine. No, you heard something that hit you wrong and called him a kook. cool.

Racist Xenophobe Kath?
Still waiting for you to post any racist quote directly from his hand or mouth in the 14+ years of service. But no you stand by those ghost written newsletters as the gold standard. you know better. Perry ever leave the N-head Club BTW?
Xenophobe = "not going to war overseas" in what dictionary? He wants to trade with all Countries. But that's not enough for some folks, we've got to have bases we can't afford all over the world like China, or Sweden or Germany and all those other horrible xenophobic nations.

Hate talk may not be the right term to use but it seems that some on the right do bust a gut emotionally over Paul And Blurp out something like KOOK! or RACIST.

When the Left Called Bush A KOOK and Idiot Or Racist what term did you use for the lefts reaction to him? maybe i'll use that.

Definition of a kook:

1. an eccentric, strange or foolish person
2. an insane person

I'm sorry your English isn't up to par, Rev. And in my opinion, Paul is extremely strange and foolish.

[jimnyc]

Just found this, haven't looked into further as of yet...

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e94_1324083770

[jimnyc]

Just found this, haven't looked into further as of yet...

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e94_1324083770

Apparently from here, which I'm reading right now - http://www.conservativesnetwork.com/2011/12/16/who-wrote-the-ron-paul-newsletters-ron-paul-wrote-them-clear-proof/

[jimnyc]

Excerpts from the above:


Citing statistics from the study, Dr. Paul then concluded in his column: `Given the inef! ficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”

”"We don’t think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That’s true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such.


I wonder what the facts are behind these comments, and whether he actually stated them. I can certainly see why he would deny or distance himself from them now though!

[jimnyc]

Explain this stance from Paul, supporting the legalization of heroin!


Paul was the only candidate at the debate to make news, calling for the repeal of laws against prostitution, cocaine and heroin. The freedom to use drugs, he argued, is equivalent to the freedom of people to “practice their religion and say their prayers.” Liberty must be defended “across the board.” “It is amazing that we want freedom to pick our future in a spiritual way,” he said, “but not when it comes to our personal habits.”

Read more: http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/columnists/article/Ron-Paul-favors-legalizing-heroin-1374192.php#ixzz1h1Ix7rxM



Like I said, a fucking kook.

[fj1200]

Explain this stance from Paul, supporting the legalization of heroin!

That's a basic Libertarian position; maximum liberty.

[jimnyc]

That's a basic Libertarian position; maximum liberty.

It's also an idiotic position, to decriminalize something that is one of the most addicting drugs on earth and one of the deadliest. And I also believe it takes a full blown kook to support that position.

[fj1200]

It's also an idiotic position, to decriminalize something that is one of the most addicting drugs on earth and one of the deadliest. And I also believe it takes a full blown kook to support that position.

It's a principled position that I can respect. Would it be your position that those who supported completely unregulated gun ownership could be considered "kookish" as well? They're both founded on maximum liberty.

[jimnyc]

It's a principled position that I can respect. Would it be your position that those who supported completely unregulated gun ownership could be considered "kookish" as well? They're both founded on maximum liberty.

A very good family friend recently died of a heroin overdose. Many of us watched in horror, no matter what we did or offer to help, as it consumed his life. First went his appearance, his job, his license, his wife and kids, his freedom several times, all of his money, the rest of his family, all of his friends and then it took his life.

I don't make comparisons about something so foolish. There is never a happy ending with heroin, it serves no place whatsoever in society and shouldn't be compared to something that is a constitutional right. I can give similar stories, with similar results, for cocaine. To just say it's because one wants maximum liberty is stupid. If such drugs can be outlawed, and any other steps taken to minimize their deadly effects, they should be taken.

[jimnyc]

Speaking about Paul once again... Even if you can verbalize why one thinks maximum liberty means to legalize heroin and cocaine - how do you put either of them on the same level as praying or practicing religion?

[Kathianne]

Apparently from here, which I'm reading right now - http://www.conservativesnetwork.com/2011/12/16/who-wrote-the-ron-paul-newsletters-ron-paul-wrote-them-clear-proof/

Yep, just the type of stuff that I posted repeatedly in 2004 and again when Rev and someone else began the new Ron Paul lovefest. Indeed there are 'supporters' who will say that Paul disavowed those newsletters, he didn't. He just claimed 'to come clean' and say he had ghostwriters. Problem was his lack of disowning, his taking the proceeds, and his continued relations with groups that still espouse the same points of view.

[red states rule]

define kook Jim. What's the mental condition. this is a fact based statement? not one based on a knee jerk and unexamined reaction to a rational statement Made by Paul that you never took the time to examine. No, you heard something that hit you wrong and called him a kook. cool.

Racist Xenophobe Kath?
Still waiting for you to post any racist quote directly from his hand or mouth in the 14+ years of service. But no you stand by those ghost written newsletters as the gold standard. you know better. Perry ever leave the N-head Club BTW?
Xenophobe = "not going to war overseas" in what dictionary? He wants to trade with all Countries. But that's not enough for some folks, we've got to have bases we can't afford all over the world like China, or Sweden or Germany and all those other horrible xenophobic nations.

Hate talk may not be the right term to use but it seems that some on the right do bust a gut emotionally over Paul And Blurp out something like KOOK! or RACIST.

When the Left Called Bush A KOOK and Idiot Or Racist what term did you use for the lefts reaction to him? maybe i'll use that.

I guess you "overlooked" my last post on Ron playing the race card

That is being a kook in my book

Seems to me Ron Paul is taking on some traits of a liberal. Ignoring our enemies, not wanting to kill terrorists, and playing the race care to lower the standings of his opponents

[fj1200]

I don't make comparisons about something so foolish.

It's a horrible thing but it's a valid comparison. Where does the line get drawn? Assault rifles and heroin are on the other side of the line for most people.

[jimnyc]

It's a horrible thing but it's a valid comparison. Where does the line get drawn? Assault rifles and heroin are on the other side of the line for most people.

I highly doubt that most people who support guns, or assault rifles, also believe heroin should be legalized. Many may scream for maximum liberty but if put into line items they would still say no to legalizing heroin.

[Abbey Marie]

My 20 year old listened to Ron Paul recently and commented that she didn't think he seem at all Presidential; more like somebody's quirky old grandpa. If young voters feel that way, he may not be electable.

[fj1200]

I highly doubt that most people who support guns, or assault rifles, also believe heroin should be legalized. Many may scream for maximum liberty but if put into line items they would still say no to legalizing heroin.

That's why no one is a Libertarian. The gun nuts don't like legalizing drugs and the drug nuts don't like gun ownership.

[jimnyc]

That's why no one is a Libertarian. The gun nuts don't like legalizing drugs and the drug nuts don't like gun ownership.

Fair assessment.

I just don't think it's good for Paul to take such a radical position. I'd LOVE to see him in a debate explaining to the American people why he believes such a deadly drug should be legalized. Stating "maximum liberty" only goes so far. He'll need to do better than that in an explanation as to why legalization is a good thing for a drug that does nothing more than kill and ruin lives.

[revelarts]

My 20 year old listened to Ron Paul recently and commented that she didn't think he seem at all Presidential; more like somebody's quirky old grandpa. If young voters feel that way, he may not be electable.

People who voted on personality got us Obama,
and if that's the case with U.S. voters we will get Obama or Rommeny, they have the best presentations. Gingirch is Ornery. No one else has a chance on the personality level.
But if we are truly sick of the status quo D's and Rs promising the moon and deliver crap, we will vote for someone with a record of voting for freedom and ideas that make sense.

[jimnyc]

People who voted on personality got us Obama,
and if that's the case with U.S. voters we will get Obama or Rommeny, they have the best presentations. Gingirch is Ornery. No one else has a chance on the personality level.
But if we are truly sick of the status quo D's and Rs promising the moon and deliver crap, we will vote for someone with a record of voting for freedom and ideas that make sense.

Yeah, let's all say our prayers, later go to a Church service, then come home and shoot up some heroin and snort lines of cocaine! His ideas make so much sense! LOL And once we're all fucked up, we can go on national TV and explain to the masses why we wrote/supported a simple newsletter that went out voicing racism.

[Abbey Marie]

Yeah, let's all say our prayers, later go to a Church service, then come home and shoot up some heroin and snort lines of cocaine! His ideas make so much sense! LOL And once we're all fucked up, we can go on national TV and explain to the masses why we wrote/supported a simple newsletter that went out voicing racism.

Now, think about it. We may want to be wasted when we are attacked due to Paul's trust of Iran, etc., and defense budget evisceration.
:laugh2:

[revelarts]

It's also an idiotic position, to decriminalize something that is one of the most addicting drugs on earth and one of the deadliest. And I also believe it takes a full blown kook to support that position.
...
GENEVA — The world's most comprehensive legalized heroin program became permanent Sunday with overwhelming approval from Swiss voters. ... The Netherlands started a smaller program in 2006, and it serves nearly 600 patients. Britain has allowed individual doctors to prescribe heroin since the 1920s, but it has been running trials similar to the Swiss approach in recent years. Belgium, Germany, Spain and Canada have been running trial programs too.

Sixty-eight percent of the 2.26 million Swiss voters casting ballots approved making the heroin program permanent....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/30/heroin-legalization-progr_n_147245.html

mmm Lots of "kooks" in the world i guess, or maybe they just disagree with you.
The regulation of it rather than outright banning. allowing addicts to make a life under some open supervison is the goal.
Look There are several reason why legalizing drugs makes more sense than what we are doing now. the freedom to do to your own body what you want more or less is a foundational one. the fact that the war on drugs, like prohibition , is not and has never worked is another. Plus Heroin was legal before in the U.S. and it didn't turn everyone into dope fiends.
Personally I wouldn't legalize heroin (but I can live with that too) but i would legalize pot ASAP. ANd then look at taking FEDERAL enforcement on all other drug use down. and focus on stopping importation. Exposing the Sections of the CIA, DEA and ATF etcc.s well documented roles in the continued flow.


A very good family friend recently died of a heroin overdose. Many of us watched in horror, no matter what we did or offer to help, as it consumed his life. First went his appearance, his job, his license, his wife and kids, his freedom several times, all of his money, the rest of his family, all of his friends and then it took his life.

I'm truly sorry about your friend Jim, That's a bad scene I've got more than one relative that's nearly died becuase of drugs and alcohol, sorry man.



I don't make comparisons about something so foolish. There is never a happy ending with heroin, it serves no place whatsoever in society and shouldn't be compared to something that is a constitutional right. I can give similar stories, with similar results, for cocaine. To just say it's because one wants maximum liberty is stupid. If such drugs can be outlawed, and any other steps taken to minimize their deadly effects, they should be taken.
.....
Speaking about Paul once again... Even if you can verbalize why one thinks maximum liberty means to legalize heroin and cocaine - how do you put either of them on the same level as praying or practicing religion?
Peyote in some Native American religions, Also some Indian (India) religions use drugs for various ceremonial uses as well.

[jimnyc]

...
GENEVA — The world's most comprehensive legalized heroin program became permanent Sunday with overwhelming approval from Swiss voters. ... The Netherlands started a smaller program in 2006, and it serves nearly 600 patients. Britain has allowed individual doctors to prescribe heroin since the 1920s, but it has been running trials similar to the Swiss approach in recent years. Belgium, Germany, Spain and Canada have been running trial programs too.

Sixty-eight percent of the 2.26 million Swiss voters casting ballots approved making the heroin program permanent....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/30/heroin-legalization-progr_n_147245.html

mmm Lots of "kooks" in the world i guess, or maybe they just disagree with you.
The regulation of it rather than outright banning. allowing addicts to make a life under some open supervison is the goal.
Look There are several reason why legalizing drugs makes more sense than what we are doing now. the freedom to do to your own body what you want more or less is a foundational one. the fact that the war on drugs, like prohibition , is not and has never worked is another. Plus Heroin was legal before in the U.S. and it didn't turn everyone into dope fiends.
Personally I wouldn't legalize heroin but i would legalize pot. ANd look taking FEDERAL enforcement on all other drug use down. and focus on stopping importation. Exposing the Sections of the CIA, DEA and ATF etcc.s well documented roles in the continued flow.



I'm truly sorry about your friend Jim, That's a bad scene I've got more than one relative that's nearly died becuase of drugs and alcohol, sorry man.


Peyote in some Native American religions, Also some Indian (India) religions use drugs for various ceremonial uses as well.

So it's ok in another country with 2.26 million voters, so therefore you think it's ok in a country our size? Heroin is already an epidemic killing thousands and thousands each year. It's not something you give to people, even in a controlled environment. All you're doing is poisoning someone in a controlled environment. Maybe have this conversation about marijuana, where someone can smoke and still work, drive, live, love... but heroin does one thing - kill. It's the same as crack, which is cocaine, which Paul also supports legalizing. It serves no purpose other than to get high, get addicted and kill and/or cause crime. I'm sure you can find 600 patients and a couple of million people (addicts likely) here in the US that will think this is a good idea too.

That's alright with me, I hope Paul eventually speaks these beliefs and scares away voters faster than lightning. And then he can explain his racist newsletters to the remaining...

[revelarts]

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/rJLHyrecog0?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
finally fox news guy being honest about Paul's run.

[jimnyc]

Rev, no offense, but do you consider dropping youtube videos in threads all over the place to be debating? I can assure you that the majority of people see that you posted a video and move along past it, like I just did.

[revelarts]

Rev, no offense, but do you consider dropping youtube videos in threads all over the place to be debating? I can assure you that the majority of people see that you posted a video and move along past it, like I just did.
Your loss Jim,
But he Quotes Republican party hacks and fox news hacks dismissing Ron Paul EVEN if (likely to) Paul wins, and continue to describe him as unelectable, But he points out that the D party hacks didn't think Jimmy Carter could and the R hacks didn't think that Reagan "the actor" could win. but he did.
And that the media news people need to stop telling people who can and cannot win, just show the facts and pontificate afterwards.

[jimnyc]

Your loss Jim,
But he Quotes Republican party hacks and fox news hacks dismissing Ron Paul EVEN if (likely to) Paul wins, and continue to describe him as unelectable, But he points out that the D party hacks didn't think Jimmy Carter could and the R hacks didn't think that Reagan "the actor" could win. but he did.
And that the media news people need to stop telling people who can and cannot win, just show the facts and pontificate afterwards.

I lose nothing. A video every now and again is one thing, but too many and people won't watch them. Videos are way too easy to edit and take out of context.

As for Paul, he hasn't a chance in hell, and I'm willing to bet on that, which I'm also betting you aren't. People say this because of the mans own words and actions. I'm sorry this upsets you, but the man you want to be president of the US is a nutter and once again will go down in flames.

[Kathianne]

Rev doesn't seem to understand that the reason that Libertarians lose time and again is that they always have put up unacceptable candidates to any that won't move past the candidate.

He's arguing for their policies, which many agree with-hence my taking 'tests' that show Paul as 'my top choice.' What the tests do not ask, "How do you feel about the candidate?"

I can look past private failures, but not bigotry, not xenophobia. Of those that tend to agree with my position choices, more agree with me, than with those that are backing Paul.

[revelarts]

Rev doesn't seem to understand that the reason that Libertarians lose time and again is that they always have put up unacceptable candidates to any that won't move past the candidate.

He's arguing for their policies, which many agree with-hence my taking 'tests' that show Paul as 'my top choice.' What the tests do not ask, "How do you feel about the candidate?"

I can look past private failures, but not bigotry, not xenophobia. Of those that tend to agree with my position choices, more agree with me, than with those that are backing Paul.

"How do you feel about the candidate?"
is the question that will always cause the country to pick a snake oil salesman. say anything as long as they like you and buy. the product might kill but that salesman was such a nice fella.
People wanted to "Hang out" with Bush but he was a not a lying big gov't Prez, Obama was a "rock star" look at how that's working for us. Bill Clinton was "so charismatic" yeah great. I look at the people around me voting asking that questions and i weep for the country. We're going to get bamboozled againif we hold that attitude, but many people will "feel good" about the prez..
but yeah sure xenophobic which = not bombing 3rd world countries, sending troops in BS wars or telling other counties how to run their gov'ts , whatever Kath.

[Creek]

I must admit all of you have valid points regarding Ron Paul's view on illegal drugs.

In this day and age,we see so many abusing the hard stuff.Especially kids,and I see no way meth would/could ever be legalized.That would be a crime against humanity.
Meth is an evil that shouldn't be classified as a drug..but death itself.

I also have friends who have turned into heroin addicts,and watched their lives become useless...and toothless.
Rumor has it the best stuff is coming off the Afghan soldiers on leave when they get back to the states here.Blows the stuff on the streets away.

One interesting thing is heroin addicts get a free ride with our methadone clinics...that us tax payer pay for anyway.
These clinics are in place,to keep your average junkie from withdrawling to the point where he commits a crime to get his fix.

The U.K. is full of them.Same here..Nobody really talks about the methadone clinics really.
It's easier feeding the addiction,than rooming the addict in jail.

So when you sit and debate about legal drug use..it's already all around us in our every day lives.

Pill use among many is out of control...that the Dr's so easily prescribe.

These are forms of legalized drugs when you think about it.
Alcohol is another.

We grew up with smoke,acid..and the powdered cocaine in my younger days.

A large majority of us seemed to have survived..Some fell along the way.The world is still here.

Same if all that was legalized tomorrow.I think a good majority of Americans would still make it to work in the morning.I don't see America any worse off than it is now with the number of users of illegal drugs...Hell,even Bill and Obama smoked weed.They became presidents.

We do worry about drugs,and especially parents.We don't want it any easier than it already is for our kids to get hooked.Well guess what...legal,or not legal they easily get it,and determine for themselves whether to use that drug.

Now it's meth,crack..and pills that are so popular with the young crowd these days.Their lives are destroyed,and they are seriously hooked on more dangerous drugs in a lot shorter of time.
I do ask is arresting them for drug use,or possession helping the problem?..There is always 2 who take their place.

Personally..I think it's a waste of tax payers money paying free room and board for addicts,or some guy picked up with a couple rocks of cocaine in his pocket,and it's his 3 rap..and ends up doing 10 years for sales/possession...I'm sure many here have an idea how much that is costing the tax payer.
Our jails are full of drug addicts,and some of them are serving more time for possession,than someone doing time for armed robbery to support his drug habit.

We can't build enough prisons as it is,and our jails are filling up.

If anyone really cares about the drug war...make it a capital crime,and adopt the measures some of these other countries do...Hang them.

Do you really think our government cares if you're hooked on drugs?

The largest producers of heroin is Afghanistan,which happens to have record breaking years of production while we occupy.Drugs coming out of there is NOT one of our priorities.

I don't think America would would crumble,nor would we have a whole country get hooked on heroin if legalized.
Those who experiment with it...do it regardless of whether it's legal,or not.

I don't believe crime would go up,nor a huge increase in users if heroin came decriminalized.
If it ever does come legal,it would eradicate the drug dealers who sell it than to just anyone.More would want to by it from a reputated source like a government agency...than some guy on a street corner.

Our jails are filled up with ding bat criminals who commit crimes to support their habit.That's where the just of the problem is...Not the use of drugs,because personally I don't think the government gives one way,or another how stoned you are off your rocker.All the better for them.It's the crime commited to being able to afford them,and support your addiction.

Personally I think legal,or illegal this country faces the problem regardless.

Whether our government turns into the drug dealer and lines their pocket,or the guy on the corner.Why would drug use increase?

How many here only have to make a phone call to get illegal drugs??..So having it legal means more will use drugs?
I think Ron Paul's position is it's your right to do what you want to do.

What's the details of his idea on legalization?..To me it sounds alot like decriminalize.

I don't look at it as Ron Paul's a nut job in his stance on the war on drugs.The war on drugs has supported the drug dealers only.

On the other side of the coin...I'd call any president who invaded a country under false premises,and changing the tune the whole time...with over 150,000 deaths...More off his rocker than Ron Paul's stance on drugs...Now that's crazy!!

Look at that Iraq war based on the WMD fiasco.It wasn't drugs that sent the soldiers home in a body bag.It was some other nut job politicans who perhaps should have been on drugs.

I find a presidential canidate who wants to start another war more dangerous than Ron Paul.

I think we can all find things crazy about elected officials/or soon to be,and one way..or another they can all get you killed.

They can all leave families grieving over a lost one..Whether it be from legalized drugs...or false wars for the big business.
I'd pick Ron Paul anyday over the rest of the canidates.
I know the saying choosing the lesser of two evils..a person ends up still making an evil choice.

But I don't think Ron Paul is being evil,or a nut job on his position.

He's just saying it's not the governments position to tell you what you can,and can not do.

People are profiting,and tax payers paying for it..That's what he's saying.

He's got my vote..because the issues that really concern me are not the legalization of drugs.

That's the least of our worries,and that would be the least of reasons not to vote for this guy.

[jimnyc]

Creek! Long time no see! Hope you're doing well, I see you're fingers aren't hurting! :laugh: