Re: Ron Paul for President?
Another good example of "freedom" in the US. Ron Paul signs not allowed... on YOUR OWN property!
www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJG3GB4EXag
J
spirituality - physics - conspiracy - philosophy - wisdom - and more...
You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Noble Realms → Current Events → Ron Paul for President?
Another good example of "freedom" in the US. Ron Paul signs not allowed... on YOUR OWN property!
www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJG3GB4EXag
J
John Stossel interviews Ron Paul:
Well, if you say so. ! I listened to another Ron Paul speech excerpt last night actually, over at YouTube, and something he noted in that speech excerpt was that he voted for this country to invade Afghanistan right after 9/11. That's being kind of "in on it" in my opinion, regardless of what the rest of his persona is all about.
So while me, and a small group of other people in this country were busy NOT believing the ludicrous bunk story that the mainstream media was feeding us about who was behind 9/11 and why, Ron Paul not only believed it.................................but followed along with the "Let's bomb the crap out of Afghanistan and kill thousands of innocent civilians because Dubya told us that it was Osama bin Laden, and that Osama is in Afghanistan!!" sheep herd mentality.
Hi Lyra,
Although this one action might make you believe he is "in on it", you have misunderstood his reasons for agreeing to the war in Afghanistan. He knows that what we have done is a complete waste of time because the only reason he voted for the resolution was because he thought we were going to restrict the oppressive reign of the Taliban and go after Bin Laden (which is definitely not the case)
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2001/tst110501.htm
He said this only a month after our invasion. I mean, even the Taliban tried to offer us Bin Laden if we could prove he was guilty.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/s … 75,00.html
I totally agree that most of the past presidents have been chosen long before they were elected, however, if you look at today's world, TPTB are slowly losing ground everywhere. David Wilcock mentioned on his site about how they're losing porn, alcohol, tobacco, mainstream media, the drug war, the war on terrorism - their house of cards is collapsing rapidly. They obviously have chosen HuckaGiuliRomney VS BillaryBama as their primary candidates and the rest don't really have a chance. Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul and Mike Gravel are the only three not on the CFR and who talk about anything worth talking about in the debates. Elizabeth Kucinich mentioned that a Paul/Kucinich ticket would even be a possibility. Here we have a politician who interest groups don't even bother with and has gotten his massive amounts of donations through completely self-organized grassroots support. Individuals willing to work for the collective. Check this out.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v700/ … mpared.gif
These people are not victims of mind control (look how much more effective PEOPLE are! if it was MC, they'd be using it for their candidates) He is OBVIOUSLY not their choice, and with the poo-slinging that starts every article about him and the fact that every major interview throws the question (which isn't even really a question, more of a vampiric statement),"You know you have no chance of winning, right?" They are SCARED. Time is rapidly accelerating, the power is quickly shifting, and I don't see why electing a president with an ounce of moral integrity is a bad thing. Sure, I don't agree with him on every issue, but come on, he's talking about our national debt (what other candidate even mentions the words?), the Federal Reserve, and is willing to abolish most of our defunct national programs. Now, this certainly won't happen overnight but it will give our blindfolded nation a long hard look at itself and help realize what we need to do to fix it.
The momentum his campaign has from individuals is enormous. Even if he doesn't get elected (and I HOPE he will - otherwise, I'm seriously worried about the future of this country, as I'm sure we all are) he will have a backing of supporters who are going to flood the 2010 elections. People that think for themselves to think for our community.
Also, a president willing to re-open a 9/11 investigation? He repeatedly says that he doesn't believe our government was involved in the attacks (obviously there were quite a few corrupted complimentary cogs) but a lot of that might come out if he gets elected. If one of those cogs spills the beans... Nuremburg Trials 2.
All in all, I'd say he's worth voting for. He's got a donation drive commemorating the Boston Tea Party on the 16th - his last drive gave him the GOP one day record. Hopefully he gets the all-time record this time around.
I typicaly would consider voting demeaning to myself when done in America but this changed when I heard about Ron Paul. Unfortunatly I'm not old enough to vote. I can still donate and spread the word
Just wanted to remind anyone who wasn't aware -
today is the commemoration of the boston tea party. as of 3PM, Ron Paul has garnered over 4 million. Paul's last bomb hauled 4.2 million in 24 hours. Kerry set the record of 5.3 million in one day when he accepted the democrat presidential nomination. it's already going to be beaten, but the question is by how much?
spread the message to your friends and let freedom ring.
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/1 … uppor.html
Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul made history Sunday by raising $6 million in online contributions in 24 hours, breaking the record for the most money raised by a national candidate in a single day, and potentially putting Paul on track to surpass the fourth quarter fund raising of all of his competitors in both parties.
The $6 million number beats the 2004 record set by Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry, who raised $5.7 million after he gave his nomination speech. The fund raising is all the more impressive because Paul is relatively unknown among rank-and-file Republicans, trailing in offline polls, while Kerry's record was set after he became the official Democratic nominee.
Paul's grassroots fund-raising boost now gives him a leg up and pulls him out of the ranks of lower-tier candidates by giving him the ability to spread his message across more traditional media, says Corrado.
"What he has done is establish himself as a major candidate, and he's no longer a fringe voice," says Corrado.
The Paul campaign reports that more than 58,000 people contributed on Sunday, December 16th, which was the 234th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party.
Of those 58,000 people, almost 25,000 were first-time donors, the campaign says. The 58,000 makes up a base of individuals of 118,000 people who contributed to the Paul campaign in the fourth quarter.
The median donation was $50, Benton says.
"One of the most important things Ron Paul does, which I think is a service to all of us, is to bring back on the table a lot of ideas that the MSM and most candidates treat as off the table," says Zephyr Teachout, a visiting assistant law professor at Duke University who directed internet organizing for Howard Dean's 2004 presidential campaign.
As much as I dislike talking politics on forums such as this...well i'm going to!
OK, I "like" Ron Paul. As many have said on here, the more I hear from him the more I like him. But I've felt the same way about Nader and Kucinich in the past, candidates whom I hold close to my heart, and voted for, but have known they wouldn't have had a chance. There's something different about Ron Paul that Kucinich or Nader didn't have; and this is the amount of fundraising he has raised, despite the lack of media coverage he's received. I think this is great! but is this enough?
Another thing is that I've NEVER voted republican. I've always voted either democrat or independent. Growing up with a very liberal mindset, and having parents that consistently voted republican....I can't see myself doing this. Joe Lieberman made an interesting point that this election is too important and shouldn't hinge on partisan lines; as he is now endorsing McCain. Perhaps a good point! Yet I still can't see myself doing this.
So hence, my vote still goes to Obama...as it has since the democratic convention during Kerry's run.
Do i like him?
Yup
Is it realistic?
Sure
Oh and he's not republican.
And he's not that woman.
^^^^ I listened to a couple of Obama speeches, and the one in South Carolina I believe, at some University, was just ridiculous. He literally said everything that people wanted to hear, and then some. Just cited every single issue plaguing America, like, a whole list of issues, to the point of ridiculousness, (I was actually laughing at one point as the list grew longer and longer)......but he never once said how he intended to fix these problems. I was so frustrated listening to it, saying, "Do people even *HEAR* this??? Are people even LISTENING to this guy?? He's just saying what everybody wants to hear!" It was just so scripted, so....................hollow.
I don't say this with the hopes of swaying you or anybody to vote for Ron Paul - I myself don't vote, and am not even registered to, nor will I ever be. But I just say this as something to keep in mind. Obama is saying exactly what he knows everybody wants to hear. Really listen to what he's saying. What he doesn't say. It's practiced rhetoric, with a flair for oration. But how is he actually going to ever even begin to fix that huge list of issues he threw out at the audience in South Carolina? It was manipulative....and the crowd fell for it. They were getting swept up by someone with good oratory skills, somebody who makes these dramatic proclamations and empty promises.
Also keep in mind that Obama is a distant cousin to Cheney. He uses that as humorous fodder in his speeches now, referring to Cheney as the black sheep in the family. cough. Bloodline. cough. cough.
At this stage in the game I consider Ron Paul to be the lesser of all the evils, and I'm secretly rooting for the guy, and I'm not even somebody who partakes in the illusion like that. I'm a total cynic conspiracy theorist who firmly believes that anybody in mainstream politics has got to be in on "IT", to some degree. But it's interesting to watch this all unfold, that's for sure......
At this stage in the game I consider Ron Paul to be the lesser of all the evils, and I'm secretly rooting for the guy, and I'm not even somebody who partakes in the illusion like that. I'm a total cynic conspiracy theorist who firmly believes that anybody in mainstream politics has got to be in on "IT", to some degree. But it's interesting to watch this all unfold, that's for sure......
I don't believe much in voting. I think all of these things are staged and decided long beforehand. Just read anything by Zbigniew Brzezinski and you can see they almost openly tell you exactly what's going to happen.
In lieu of all this I still find myself becoming hopeful when I hear Ron Paul speak, and wonder if I shouldn't vote this time, and perhaps it may make a difference after all. Probably just another pipe dream...
He's related to CHENEY?! Yikes! I was a big fan of Obama although I started to pick up on exactly what Lyra is talking about. He is a MASTERFUL politician. He has some great ideas though - the technology adviser position as well as the online Congressional "wiki". I think he's the least of the mainstream evils (and a CFR member? c'mon but I'd much rather see someone willing to look at the national debt, end the war on drugs and withdraw the American empire (the world would be so much better off and so would we). More of the same from everyone else...
He's related to CHENEY?! Yikes!
Yes, it's amazing how many people still don't realize this. This revelation came out months ago, and Obama started using it as humor in his speeches in order to diffuse the pesky questions and lightbulb connections that might arise in voters' minds.
David Icke and others have been saying for years and years now that most of the presidents are related genetically. The conspiracy theorists know this. It's the mainstream public that's either still in the dark, or refusing to listen and believe it. But the Obama/Cheney link came out in the mainstream news arena and so something needed to be done about it. He couldn't ignore it, that would make it even more suspicious, so, he chose to address it head on, and used the age-old tactic of humor to diffuse it. That's usually all you have to do with most people, just crack a joke, distract them, then plow forward. But I'm hoping that the more alert people out there didn't let that distract them. I hope people put two and two together. "Gee............Obama is related to Cheney.............Al Gore was related to Bush.............Kerry was related to both of them.................what's going on here?!?! Why are all the supposed separate and independent presidential candidates linked genetically?!?!"
So, pass the word on to people you know in life when the subject of politics and the '08 election comes up, or on other message boards you all may post to. It's time for the public to wake up already.
Les Visible has the best blog rolling on the Ron Paul trail.
Check it out.
Smoking Mirrors
As long as certain twisted souls feel the need to lie, cheat and murder to achieve their ends some of us need to keep pointing it out...
The thing that makes me the sickest is the $ bullshit.
OK, Paul has $6M. Great.
It does show the level of desperation among average Americans to get these walking turds out of office. Which I understand.
But.. why does it always come down to who has the fattest purse? WTF does that have to do with respectable governance?
NOTHING!!!!
Do people not see this as the bribery that it is?
I say we give each candy-date $10,000.
And see how far they get on that. Chances are none of them will make it to the end of their own driveway.
Then, when we have none left- we can hit the refresh button. We'll find 6 or 8 more stooges, see how far they get.
Yeah, I'm cynical. I voted for Perot in '92 AND '96, back when I still bought into this fantasy of freedom. He was a self-made man, already richer than all his fellow candidates,
so he needed zero campaigning donations.
AND he said he would do the job WITHOUT taking any salary. I'm sure it wasn't all that simple, but between the two R.P.s..... give me Ross.
But, sorry- I won't vote with a gun to my head, not an icecube's chance in hell.
J
Emmm... kinda sorry about that ^
Hope I'm not a hope-killer
Just being honest... yikes tho
carry on...
J
Vote Ron Paul! He did a superb job on CNN Headline News last night. Outsmarted Rupert! He voted No for the war funding bill.
Congress Must Admit Its Mistake and Repeal the Authorization to Go to War
The War Funding Bill
By Rep. RON PAUL
The $124 billion supplemental appropriation is a good bill to oppose. I am pleased that many of my colleagues will join me in voting against this measure.
If one is unhappy with our progress in Iraq after four years of war, voting to de-fund the war makes sense. If one is unhappy with the manner in which we went to war, without a constitutional declaration, voting no makes equally good sense.
Voting no also makes the legitimate point that the Constitution does not authorize Congress to direct the management of any military operation-- the president clearly enjoys this authority as Commander in Chief.
But Congress just as clearly is responsible for making policy, by debating and declaring war, raising and equipping armies, funding military operations, and ending conflicts that do not serve our national interests.
Congress failed to meet its responsibilities four years ago, unconstitutionally transferring its explicit war power to the executive branch. Even though the administration started the subsequent pre-emptive war in Iraq, Congress bears the greatest responsibility for its lack of courage in fulfilling its duties. Since then Congress has obediently provided the funds and troops required to pursue this illegitimate war.
We won't solve the problems in Iraq until we confront our failed policy of foreign interventionism. This latest appropriation does nothing to solve our dilemma. Micromanaging the war while continuing to fund it won't help our troops.
Here's a new approach: Congress should admit its mistake and repeal the authority wrongfully given to the executive branch in 2002. Repeal the congressional sanction and disavow presidential discretion in starting wars. Then start bringing our troops home.
If anyone charges that this approach does not support the troops, take a poll. Find out how reservists, guardsmen, and their families--many on their second or third tour in Iraq--feel about it.
The constant refrain that bringing our troops home would demonstrate a lack of support for them must be one of the most amazing distortions ever foisted on the American public. We're so concerned about saving face, but whose face are we saving? A sensible policy would save American lives and follow the rules laid out for Congress in the Constitution-and avoid wars that have no purpose.
The claim that it's unpatriotic to oppose spending more money in Iraq must be laid to rest as fraudulent.
We should pass a resolution that expresses congressional opposition to any more undeclared, unconstitutional, unnecessary, pre-emptive wars. We should be building a consensus for the future that makes it easier to end our current troubles in Iraq.
It's amazing to me that this Congress is more intimidated by political propagandists and special interests than the American electorate, who sent a loud, clear message about the war in November. The large majority of Americans now want us out of Iraq.
Our leaders cannot grasp the tragic consequence of our policies toward Iraq for the past 25 years. It's time we woke them up.
We are still by far the greatest military power on earth. But since we stubbornly refuse to understand the nature of our foes, we are literally defeating ourselves.
In 2004, bin Laden stated that Al Qaeda's goal was to bankrupt the United States. His second in command, Zawahari, is quoted as saying that the 9/11 attack would cause Americans to, "come and fight the war personally on our sand where they are within rifle range."
Sadly, we are playing into their hands. This $124 billion appropriation is only part of the nearly $1 trillion in military spending for this year's budget alone. We should be concerned about the coming bankruptcy and the crisis facing the U.S. dollar.
We have totally failed to adapt to modern warfare. We're dealing with a small, nearly invisible enemy--an enemy without a country, a government, an army, a navy, an air force, or missiles. Yet our enemy is armed with suicidal determination, and motivated by our meddling in their regional affairs, to destroy us.
And as we bleed financially, our men and women in Iraq die needlessly while the injured swell Walter Reed hospital. Our government systematically undermines the Constitution and the liberties it's supposed to protect-- for which it is claimed our soldiers are dying in faraway places.
Only with the complicity of Congress have we become a nation of pre-emptive war, secret military tribunals, torture, rejection of habeas corpus, warrantless searches, undue government secrecy, extraordinary renditions, and uncontrollable spying on the American people. The greatest danger we face is ourselves: what we are doing in the name of providing security for a people made fearful by distortions of facts. Fighting over there has nothing to do with preserving freedoms here at home. More likely the opposite is true.
Surely we can do better than this supplemental authorization. I plan to vote no.
Ron Paul is a Republican congressman from Texas.
Noble Realms → Current Events → Ron Paul for President?
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.