Reading the Ron Paul posts here is an education. I talk with Conservatives, Liberals, Republicans, TeaBaggers, Independents, Libertarians and Democrats... but no where but here do I hear the Ron Paul Religious Fanatic Views.
Paul is at best a fringe candidate. Without the Republican nomination he will lose. It would take several heart attacks, a few wars, several assignations, a nuke meltdown, a plague and probably an alien invasion for Paul to get elected... and even then he'd be a long shot.
I wonder if the Paul fans are similar to the Chicago Cubs? Cubbies know that they will lose, they pretend that they have a chance, and act like they're a contender to win the world series. Cubs fans (Like Paul Fans) seem to enjoy the status of always trying, but never winning. It leaves them in a constant state of unquenched anticipation. The Cubs last won the World Series in 1908... 103 years ago. Ron Paul has only been in politics since the early '70s.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
So we should just ignore the best person for the job and just continue to support the same ol' sh1t. Sorry Box but me and many others won't sell out again, he might not win but that will not stop me from supporting him or his message.
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
Some fringe candidates are running for office, and might make a good president, but their real interest is pushing a certain issue... The gold standard might be a good example for Paul. Nader pushed automobile safety and fuel standards in his early campaigns, and was somewhat successful... not at getting elected, but at getting his issues into the mainstream conversation. Does anyone thing that Ron Paul is running for office for that purpose??? To bring a social or economic issue into the mainstream conversation, instead of actually running for president???
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Does anyone thing that Ron Paul is running for office for that purpose??? To bring a social or economic issue into the mainstream conversation, instead of actually running for president???
Actually that is a good question, last time around may have been for that reason and it actually received a lot of attention. This time around he is in it to win because there is a growing movement who understand what a danger a uncontrolled government will bring. We seen the rise of the Tea Party with his last campaign and even a bigger rise and understanding of Libertarianism. Even if he doesn't win he has done more good for this country by waking people up to real issues than probably any politician since Barry Goldwater.
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
Check out Politico's "Morning Score" tomorrow for some big breaking news on our campaign!-Ron Paul
Hmmm this should be interesting, I'll keep you guys posted on what it is.
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
Check out Politico's "Morning Score" tomorrow for some big breaking news on our campaign!-Ron Paul
Hmmm this should be interesting, I'll keep you guys posted on what it is.
My guess... $$$More Money$$$!
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
I waited all night to hear this??? I was promised some interesting 'breaking news' from Ron Paul, and all I got was this U Tube Video???
I set my alarm so I'd wake up early... i even set the coffee pot to brew extra early so I'd be wide awake for the news... I couldn't sleep... I tossed and turned... I counted sheep but all I could see is Ron Paul and those sheep... I dozed, I snored, I looked at the alarm clock expecting to see at least an hour go by but only 4 minutes had elapsed... I kept my computer on all night set to POLITICO, with anticipation of the REALLY BIG NEWS FROM RON PAUL... and... and... AND...
I Didn't Sleep All Night and All I Got Was A Video Saying...
VOTE FOR ME???
I'm so dissapointed
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
First campaign ads are always big new and he killed 2 birds with one stone, not only did he rip the dems he made it clear that the republicans might also sell out. The majority of the country doesn't want the debt ceiling raised and they're keeping an eye on this. This ad is already getting attention and it hasn't even aired yet, his ads from the last campaign sucked and many of his supporters blasted his staff because of it, I'm glad they're listening now.
Sorry you lost sleep Box, I liked it In other news I heard Obama walked out during the meeting about the debt talks, rumor has it he yelled like a girl "why won't they listen to me" as he ran out the door waving his arms franticly LMAO
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Ron Paul Ad Invokes Reagan, Imprecisely July 15, 2011 Ron Paul wrongly suggests Ronald Reagan reluctantly agreed to a "debt ceiling compromise" in 1987. There was no disagreement over raising the debt ceiling. In fact, Reagan said he had "no objection whatsoever" to raising the debt ceiling. Reagan opposed the main provision of the legislation that threatened to impose deep spending cuts, including to the military, if the president and Congress did not reduce the deficit by a certain amount.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Reagan, Sept. 29, 1987: The first provision extends the Federal Government's authority to borrow funds. This is an action that we just take to prevent the Government from defaulting on its obligations, and I have no objection whatsoever to doing so. In short, this extension of the debt limit is necessary and unavoidable. But the second provision is one to which it is my duty as President to voice the strongest possible objection. For this second provision involves a so-called fix of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings deficit reduction law — a fix that doesn't fix things in the right way.
Does Fact Check have to reference their facts? They quote this as if this was Reagan's words, but it doesn't reference where they found those words. Can anybody find this out? Unless Eugene Kiely was in the room when he said it. I just don't know.
Does Fact Check have to reference their facts? They quote this as if this was Reagan's words, but it doesn't reference where they found those words. Can anybody find this out? Unless Eugene Kiely was in the room when he said it. I just don't know.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith