Here's the greatest movie line of all time...(Windows media player)
http://extremewisdom.com/images/Best.wmv
http://extremewisdom.com/images/Best.wmv
The New Ron Paul Thread
- Thread starter brighamr
- Start date
- Status
Lone_Gunman
Member
How? I don't intend to vote for Fred Thompson, even if Ron Paul was not in the election. I would probably still vote Republican in a general election against Hillary, but other than Ron Paul, I don't really have a preference of which candidate. Giuliani is only minimally worse than McCain or Romney. My main reason to vote Republican in 2008 if a neo-conservative runs isnot because I believe in their cause, but simply to divide the power in Washington between dems and reps, and hopefully stalemate the political process.
Marshall
Member
Well, because I would think you would rather have a choice of Fred to vote for, against Hillary in the general election, than Rudi. Maybe you wouldn't? I think many would though.
High Planes Drifter
Member
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2006
- Messages
- 1,204
1) There is no wasted vote.
2) Libertarians are believers in rugged individualism, and dont vote for a candidate simply because thats who the rest of the lemmings are voting for.
3) I think most of us realize that. Most Americans want us out of Iraq anyway.
Ron Paul will not do anything to take away our rights.
I didnt copy the rest of your post because you were just repeating yourself in a rant state.
Marshall wrote
The way I see it, there's not a whole lot of difference between the three. The Fred Thompson lovefest members have made the man out to be a savior, IMO he's nothing more than a tall, baldheaded version of GWB.
pcosmar
member
It was asked what ways we can support Ron Paul.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/get-involved/
There are also DVDs that you can download and burn. These are good for those that have slow internet and can't see the videos.
Make signs and put them where they can be seen.
This is what I have been doing. http://www.flickr.com/photos/pcosmar/sets/72157600346333986/
There are pdf files that you can down load and print. Fliers cards and posters. Print and hand out. Talk to folks.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/get-involved/
There are also DVDs that you can download and burn. These are good for those that have slow internet and can't see the videos.
Make signs and put them where they can be seen.
This is what I have been doing. http://www.flickr.com/photos/pcosmar/sets/72157600346333986/
pcosmar
member
I don't think it matters, That would still be a vote for the CFR. I don't want any more of that.
CFRed will continue the Spanish owned Toll Road through the middle of our country.
CFRed will push the illegal Immigration amnesty.
CFRed will push the REAL ID.
CFRed will continue the SPP and eventually the NAU.
CFRed will let you keep some guns for a while, With "reasonable restrictions", until some people revolt at the rest of the Plan.
CFRed will continue the policy of foreign aggression.
I want to see a change, not more of the same.
Lone_Gunman
Member
Yes, I would rather have Fred running against Hillary than Giuliani running against her. But its only a marginal preference.
I would much rather have Ron Paul running against Hillary, but I agree it is a longshot that he will get the nomination. Probably impossible, even. But then again, there have been other long shots in American History that paid off. Who would have ever thought a rag tag group of colonials could have defeated the largest army the world had ever seen?
LarryNC
Member
I too am a Ron Paul supporter. If he doesn't get the nomination then I will vote for him using the write-in method. I am so tired of voting for who I'm guessing is the lesser of two evils. For years now I've been voting against someone, now I have a chance to actually vote for someone.
Carl N. Brown
Member
Don't yet know enough to support or oppose the man,
but the only 2008 campaign poster I have seen in
my home town is a "Ron Paul 2008" sign at the
bank side of the Kingsport Church Circle.
but the only 2008 campaign poster I have seen in
my home town is a "Ron Paul 2008" sign at the
bank side of the Kingsport Church Circle.
DigitalWarrior
Member
Carl, I would suggest googling Ron Paul.
So you know, the number of signs is not an indicator of political support, it is an indicator of the number of paid sign placers. Signs cost money and those guys make a lot of dough. Instead you might be interested to know that there were as many people waiting for Ron Paul after the debates (and there was no guarantee he would show) as there were for Rudy in Nashua the other day.
DW
So you know, the number of signs is not an indicator of political support, it is an indicator of the number of paid sign placers. Signs cost money and those guys make a lot of dough. Instead you might be interested to know that there were as many people waiting for Ron Paul after the debates (and there was no guarantee he would show) as there were for Rudy in Nashua the other day.
DW
R127
Member
Here's a very interesting video about Giuliani made by New York fire fighters.
http://www.rudy-urbanlegend.com/index.asp?v=vaCYEEO-58I
After watching that I do believe Rudy's days are numbered. This reminds me of Kerry vs the swift boat veterans. Anyway, with McCain out of the picture and this Giuliani bomb starting to circulate that leaves only no-account Romney as a threat to Paul's nomination. Well, if Fred ever decides to run he might offer some opposition but there is no way Thompson could ever win a general election anyway so I'm not too worried about that.
So much for being a "longshot." It does appear that Paul will outlast his opponents.
http://www.rudy-urbanlegend.com/index.asp?v=vaCYEEO-58I
After watching that I do believe Rudy's days are numbered. This reminds me of Kerry vs the swift boat veterans. Anyway, with McCain out of the picture and this Giuliani bomb starting to circulate that leaves only no-account Romney as a threat to Paul's nomination. Well, if Fred ever decides to run he might offer some opposition but there is no way Thompson could ever win a general election anyway so I'm not too worried about that.
So much for being a "longshot." It does appear that Paul will outlast his opponents.
samtechlan
Member
Ron Paul on Tucker Carlson today.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0u3vU6S-O0c&eurl=http://www.dailypaul.com/
_________________________________________________________
www.ronpaul2008.com
Two fantastic Austrian weapons:
One is mechanical: http://www.glock.com/
The other is intellectual: Austrian Economics www.mises.org
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0u3vU6S-O0c&eurl=http://www.dailypaul.com/
_________________________________________________________
www.ronpaul2008.com
Two fantastic Austrian weapons:
One is mechanical: http://www.glock.com/
The other is intellectual: Austrian Economics www.mises.org
I'd rather vote my conscience, and for a honorable, stand up candidate, than vote for someone because they share my party. If the replublican lose in 2008, it won't be because of people like Ron Paul. It is because the party has lost it's way.
People need to have the courage and the intrgrity to do the right thing, not vote for some POS, because he's 'our POS'.
People need to have the courage and the intrgrity to do the right thing, not vote for some POS, because he's 'our POS'.
publius
Member
I wonder about the telephone based polls. They were accurate in the past, but in the past it was easier.
I'm on the do-not-call list, and my landline is connected only to a fax machine. I keep an old fashioned phone out in my shed for potential use after a hurricane, but there is no phone plugged in at my house. I only answer my cellphone.
There are millions who are on that list, and I talk to people all the time who just no longer use land lines at all. Those factors seem to me to make it much harder to randomly poll people than it was just 10 years ago.
I'm on the do-not-call list, and my landline is connected only to a fax machine. I keep an old fashioned phone out in my shed for potential use after a hurricane, but there is no phone plugged in at my house. I only answer my cellphone.
There are millions who are on that list, and I talk to people all the time who just no longer use land lines at all. Those factors seem to me to make it much harder to randomly poll people than it was just 10 years ago.
Ukraine Train
Member
Ron Paul voted against condemning Iran?
Saw this article this morning about Dennis Kucinich and it mentioned that he and Ron Paul were the only two congressmen to vote against a resolution "condemning the Iranian leader and asking the U.N. Security Council to take up charges alleging violations of genocide conventions." I'm wondering if anyone knows what his reasons were for voting against it.
http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1184229693289000.xml&coll=2
Kucinich Iran stance outrages Ohio Jewish leaders
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Stephen Koff
Plain Dealer Washington Bureau Chief
Dennis Kucinich, the colorful Cleveland congressman and longshot presidential candidate, has outraged Jewish leaders in Northeast Ohio by insisting that Iran's anti-Zionist leader is not seeking to exterminate Israel.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is regarded by many in the western world as a menace with nuclear ambitions, who recently called for supporters of Israel to, among other things, "burn in the fire of the Islamic nations' fury." Kucinich, however, says another translation of that and other statements is that Ahmadinejad merely wants regime change in Israel, not death to its people and supporters.
Jewish leaders say such a translation might be acceptable only if Kucinich ignored Ahmadinejad's behavior, which includes torture of his own people, and Middle East history since Israel's founding in 1948.
Kucinich's position puts him in a slim minority in Congress - two, if you count Kucinich.
He and Texas Republican Ron Paul - also a presidential aspirant - were the only House members to vote against a June 20 resolution condemning the Iranian leader and asking the U.N. Security Council to take up charges alleging violations of genocide conventions. Cleveland Democratic Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones and Lake County Republican Steve LaTourette were among the measure's 103 co-sponsors.
A June 28 letter to Kucinich from Harley Gross, chairman of the Jewish Community Federation of Cleveland, and Stephen Hoffman, the federation president, called Kucinich's interpretation of Ahmadinejad's statements "both tortured and a clear indication of either a lack of understanding of Israel's enemies on your part or, and we hope that this is not the case, an antipathy toward Israel."
"Unfortunately, it goes beyond naive," Alan Melamed, president of the Cleveland chapter of the American Jewish Committee, said in a phone interview Wednesday.
Kucinich sent a letter on Wednesday seeking to defend his actions, saying that, whatever the translation, he finds Ahmadinejad's statements "objectionable and outrageous." The letter to Hoffman and Gross asserted Kucinich's "full support for the people of Israel."
Yet he said that he could not back the House resolution because it carried only worst-case translations and he regarded it as an attempt to beat "the war drum to build support for a U.S. attack on Iran."
This is not the first time Kucinich has upset Jewish community leaders.
After he and his wife, Elizabeth, visited the Middle East in 2006, they described in detail the destruction they had seen caused by Israeli bombs in Lebanon, but they did not visit scenes of Hezbollah attacks in Israel. He said he ran out of time in part because of travel difficulties.
In 2003, Kucinich reversed himself and returned a $500 campaign contribution to a man linked to Middle East terrorists. Kucinich resisted returning the 1997 donation from Abdurahman Alamoudi until Alamoudi was arrested on charges of accepting payments from Libya and supporting terrorists. Other politicians had already returned donations from Alamoudi, who was later convicted. The American Jewish Committee at the time said Kucinich's refusal showed a lack of moral leadership.
Kucinich's stances, however, have not hurt his congressional re-election efforts to date. He has support from many Arab-Americans in his district, which does not have a big Jewish community.
Joe Charif, president of the Cleveland American Middle Eastern Organization, called Kucinich a "highly regarded" representative who strives for peace. Charif said that he personally does not know whether Ahmadinejad called for Israel's destruction, but that he has seen people on Middle Eastern television - critics of Israel - explain it in ways similar to Kucinich.
Said Sam Khawan, chairman of the Arab-American Community Center for Economic and Social Services, which sponsored Kucinich's trip last year: "All I know is that Dennis is a man of peace and always wants a peaceful resolution."
To reach this Plain Dealer reporter:
[email protected], 216-999-4212
Saw this article this morning about Dennis Kucinich and it mentioned that he and Ron Paul were the only two congressmen to vote against a resolution "condemning the Iranian leader and asking the U.N. Security Council to take up charges alleging violations of genocide conventions." I'm wondering if anyone knows what his reasons were for voting against it.
http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1184229693289000.xml&coll=2
Kucinich Iran stance outrages Ohio Jewish leaders
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Stephen Koff
Plain Dealer Washington Bureau Chief
Dennis Kucinich, the colorful Cleveland congressman and longshot presidential candidate, has outraged Jewish leaders in Northeast Ohio by insisting that Iran's anti-Zionist leader is not seeking to exterminate Israel.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is regarded by many in the western world as a menace with nuclear ambitions, who recently called for supporters of Israel to, among other things, "burn in the fire of the Islamic nations' fury." Kucinich, however, says another translation of that and other statements is that Ahmadinejad merely wants regime change in Israel, not death to its people and supporters.
Jewish leaders say such a translation might be acceptable only if Kucinich ignored Ahmadinejad's behavior, which includes torture of his own people, and Middle East history since Israel's founding in 1948.
Kucinich's position puts him in a slim minority in Congress - two, if you count Kucinich.
He and Texas Republican Ron Paul - also a presidential aspirant - were the only House members to vote against a June 20 resolution condemning the Iranian leader and asking the U.N. Security Council to take up charges alleging violations of genocide conventions. Cleveland Democratic Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones and Lake County Republican Steve LaTourette were among the measure's 103 co-sponsors.
A June 28 letter to Kucinich from Harley Gross, chairman of the Jewish Community Federation of Cleveland, and Stephen Hoffman, the federation president, called Kucinich's interpretation of Ahmadinejad's statements "both tortured and a clear indication of either a lack of understanding of Israel's enemies on your part or, and we hope that this is not the case, an antipathy toward Israel."
"Unfortunately, it goes beyond naive," Alan Melamed, president of the Cleveland chapter of the American Jewish Committee, said in a phone interview Wednesday.
Kucinich sent a letter on Wednesday seeking to defend his actions, saying that, whatever the translation, he finds Ahmadinejad's statements "objectionable and outrageous." The letter to Hoffman and Gross asserted Kucinich's "full support for the people of Israel."
Yet he said that he could not back the House resolution because it carried only worst-case translations and he regarded it as an attempt to beat "the war drum to build support for a U.S. attack on Iran."
This is not the first time Kucinich has upset Jewish community leaders.
After he and his wife, Elizabeth, visited the Middle East in 2006, they described in detail the destruction they had seen caused by Israeli bombs in Lebanon, but they did not visit scenes of Hezbollah attacks in Israel. He said he ran out of time in part because of travel difficulties.
In 2003, Kucinich reversed himself and returned a $500 campaign contribution to a man linked to Middle East terrorists. Kucinich resisted returning the 1997 donation from Abdurahman Alamoudi until Alamoudi was arrested on charges of accepting payments from Libya and supporting terrorists. Other politicians had already returned donations from Alamoudi, who was later convicted. The American Jewish Committee at the time said Kucinich's refusal showed a lack of moral leadership.
Kucinich's stances, however, have not hurt his congressional re-election efforts to date. He has support from many Arab-Americans in his district, which does not have a big Jewish community.
Joe Charif, president of the Cleveland American Middle Eastern Organization, called Kucinich a "highly regarded" representative who strives for peace. Charif said that he personally does not know whether Ahmadinejad called for Israel's destruction, but that he has seen people on Middle Eastern television - critics of Israel - explain it in ways similar to Kucinich.
Said Sam Khawan, chairman of the Arab-American Community Center for Economic and Social Services, which sponsored Kucinich's trip last year: "All I know is that Dennis is a man of peace and always wants a peaceful resolution."
To reach this Plain Dealer reporter:
[email protected], 216-999-4212
araiford
Member
Just guessing, but maybe it has something to do with the USA asking the UN to speak on our behalf.
budney
member
I'm an uncompromising supporter of Israel, but the evidence does seem to indicate that Ahmedinejad's remarks were mis-translated. He was clearly saying that Israel would eventually go away, not that he intended to be the one to do the honors. The US and USSR said that about each other throughout the cold war, and we didn't go to war over it.
He's wrong, of course. Israel isn't going anywhere. But as long as he confines himself to expressing his opinion, it's a bit heavy-handed, not to mention disrespectful of the Shoah, to paint Mahmoud as Hitler.
--Len.
He's wrong, of course. Israel isn't going anywhere. But as long as he confines himself to expressing his opinion, it's a bit heavy-handed, not to mention disrespectful of the Shoah, to paint Mahmoud as Hitler.
--Len.
Beatnik
Member
Right there, like araiford said: Paul is no fan of the U.N. to begin with.
He also repeats over and over that we shouldn't meddle in the affairs of other nations. Since he is apparently the last conservative to believe in Just War as opposed to Preemptive War, it would make sense that he'd want to simply keep out of it - until the Iranians actually DO something to make our meddling in their affairs justified.
araiford
Member
Washington Times: Paul rises from GOP unknown to 'sleeper'
http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20070711/NATION/107100079/1002
http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20070711/NATION/107100079/1002
Cromlech
Member
I was just about to say something similar. Even IF Ron Paul was a supporter of the 'war on terror', that doesn't mean to say that he should back U.N (in)action.
R127
Member
Well, thank goodness for that! Israel ain't my problem, ain't America's problem. We'd do well to stay out of the sandbox entirely, no good ever comes from playing with those kids, they have nothing of interest to us and the last thing we need to do is expand the Bush Crusade into Iran. Our resources are stretched thin enough as is and while everybody's worried about Iraq, Afganistan, Korea, Israel and a whole bunch of other places we shouldn't be involved with our own nation defense is being totally overlooked and we're being overrun by tens of millions of illegal immigrant invaders through our ridiculously porous borders. If you're one of those types who spends all their time quaking in their boots over terrorists then you should realize all any terrorist would need to do is stick a sombrero on a nuke and send it over the Rio Grande and nobody would stop it. Enough is enough. The first duty of our military is defending America and our Constitution, not doing the dirty work for foreigners in farflung lands. What kind of weird reversal is this?
mmike87
Member
Beatnik said it. Ron Paul is a person who takes the position of "non-involvement" very seriously.
I have to be honest, but I am starting to agree with a total non-involvement policy. Meddling in the world's affairs has done nothing but cost us thousands of lives (even well outside of Iraq), is bankrupting the nation, and has yet to ever produce any tagnigble benefit for us.
As much as I despise Iran having nuclear weapons, who are we to tell them or anyone else they cannot have them but we can? And then we wonder why people hate us so much.
We have two options with Iran.
1) Continue this course, make them and world hate us even more with our meddling. Iran will eventually get nukes anyway, and will be even more pissed off and even more likely to use them.
2) Stop meddling and let the world go about it's business. Iran will get nukes anyway.
Either way, Iran is getting nuclear weapons. We cannot stop it, no one can. It's arrogant and stupid to think we can. So why bother? We're living a lie in overestimating our own influence in the world.
Sort of like the "war on drugs." People are smoking weed anyway, so why spend billions trying to stop them?
It's about time we let the world go about it's business and start worrying about America first. Our dollar is bordering on worthless. Our national debut is so high that the government has to keep printing more money to keep interest rates down to keep the country from defaulting ... "stealth" inflation erodes our purchasing power ... the list goes on. But we are saving the world by keeping nukes out of Iran's hands. Pakistan already has them - so the Nuke cat is already out of the bag in the Muslim world anyway.
Flame me if you must - but seriously - what has all the meddling we've done since World War II really gained us? All this preemptive crap prevents nothing and costs a fortune.
Ron Paul is the only candidate who will really try and change the way we do things in America. And he likes guns, too - so that's a plus.
I have to be honest, but I am starting to agree with a total non-involvement policy. Meddling in the world's affairs has done nothing but cost us thousands of lives (even well outside of Iraq), is bankrupting the nation, and has yet to ever produce any tagnigble benefit for us.
As much as I despise Iran having nuclear weapons, who are we to tell them or anyone else they cannot have them but we can? And then we wonder why people hate us so much.
We have two options with Iran.
1) Continue this course, make them and world hate us even more with our meddling. Iran will eventually get nukes anyway, and will be even more pissed off and even more likely to use them.
2) Stop meddling and let the world go about it's business. Iran will get nukes anyway.
Either way, Iran is getting nuclear weapons. We cannot stop it, no one can. It's arrogant and stupid to think we can. So why bother? We're living a lie in overestimating our own influence in the world.
Sort of like the "war on drugs." People are smoking weed anyway, so why spend billions trying to stop them?
It's about time we let the world go about it's business and start worrying about America first. Our dollar is bordering on worthless. Our national debut is so high that the government has to keep printing more money to keep interest rates down to keep the country from defaulting ... "stealth" inflation erodes our purchasing power ... the list goes on. But we are saving the world by keeping nukes out of Iran's hands. Pakistan already has them - so the Nuke cat is already out of the bag in the Muslim world anyway.
Flame me if you must - but seriously - what has all the meddling we've done since World War II really gained us? All this preemptive crap prevents nothing and costs a fortune.
Ron Paul is the only candidate who will really try and change the way we do things in America. And he likes guns, too - so that's a plus.
I think it's pretty early to count Paul out. There's more than a year to the election, and Paul seems to be the only candidate who's followers are growing. He's only now being reported on by the main stream media in any real way. As more and more people learn about his positions, I expect him to start drawing bigger numbers - not only republicans, but independants and Democrats that are all disgusted with 'business as usual'.
McCain is already on the down slide, and Rudi's appeal seems to be declining as well. Romney won't last. The question seems to be will Thompson declare, and will he stand up to scruitiny once he does?
At the very least, people on this board should understand that neither Rudi or Mitt is pro-gun. A vote for either of these two isn't much different than a vote for Hillary when it comes to second ammendment rights.
McCain is already on the down slide, and Rudi's appeal seems to be declining as well. Romney won't last. The question seems to be will Thompson declare, and will he stand up to scruitiny once he does?
At the very least, people on this board should understand that neither Rudi or Mitt is pro-gun. A vote for either of these two isn't much different than a vote for Hillary when it comes to second ammendment rights.
mmike87
Member
Ron get's my vote. Period. Anyone who votes for the rank and file are the one's "wasting" their votes, IMO.
Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate that will do anything differently in America - and he has the voting "NO" record to prove it.
Vote for Congressman NO in 2008.
Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate that will do anything differently in America - and he has the voting "NO" record to prove it.
Vote for Congressman NO in 2008.
araiford
Member
Dr. No 2008
- Status