Ron Paul for President thread.

[hendrixfreak70]

Today is another day the Paul campaign makes history. In honor of the Boston Tea Party, we are donating 100 dollars (maybe more maybe less). 234 years ago today Americans dumped tea into the Boston harbor to protest stupid taxes. Will you join us today in making history? The future of our Republic depends on it. When the donations started at midnight the money raised was about 11.6 million dollars. At 9:10 this morning it is already at 13.2 million with alot of time left to donate. Visit www.ronpaul2008.com (http://www.ronpaul2008.com) to give or just watch, it truly is fascinating to see.

[mspolitics82]

OKay, now...all you Ron Paul Supporters......WHAT IF,,,,just WHAT IF he does not get the nomination at the Republican National Convention. What then? He does not (I heard him say it) intend on running as an independent candidate. Obviously if he DID do that, all of you guys and gals would vote for him, wouldnt' you? And would that not give the DEMOCRAT an automatic victory? I think that is what Ron apparently has decided to NOT run as an independent, unless enough of his supporters convince him otherwise....which would be a travesty, in my opinion.

What do you Ron Paul supporters, or anyone else, think about a NATIONAL PRIMARY election...everybody on the ballot...everyone with an equal chance among the real electorate?

[hendrixfreak70]

OKay, now...all you Ron Paul Supporters......WHAT IF,,,,just WHAT IF he does not get the nomination at the Republican National Convention. What then? He does not (I heard him say it) intend on running as an independent candidate. Obviously if he DID do that, all of you guys and gals would vote for him, wouldnt' you? And would that not give the DEMOCRAT an automatic victory? I think that is what Ron apparently has decided to NOT run as an independent, unless enough of his supporters convince him otherwise....which would be a travesty, in my opinion.

What do you Ron Paul supporters, or anyone else, think about a NATIONAL PRIMARY election...everybody on the ballot...everyone with an equal chance among the real electorate?

If he was to run as an independent you're damn right I would vote for him. I plan on writing him in regardless. I have moved past the republican/democratic paradigm and realized that no matter what party they are from they are all the same.... two wings of the same bird. No Dem is strong on really wanting to get the troops out of Iraq. If they were, and they have alot of control now in Congress, then it would have happened already. Dems benefit just as much as the Repubs with illegal immigration... rather it is in a business sense or a political sense. Same thing goes with the war. If you look closely Giuliani and Clinton are not that far apart... and the same thing goes for the others. I think though, if Ron doesn't run as a Constitutionalist, Libertarian, or Independent it would be a travesty. Never in my 27 years of life have I felt so strongly about someone, and I loved me some Alan Keyes in 2000. As far as a national primary electorate... I would love it and Ron Paul would win in a landslide.Those are good questions though.

[Reason]

What do you Ron Paul supporters, or anyone else, think about a NATIONAL PRIMARY election...everybody on the ballot...everyone with an equal chance among the real electorate?

I'm all for it.

I say abolish the party system. Abolish the electoral college.

[dollfus46]

OKay, now...all you Ron Paul Supporters......WHAT IF,,,,just WHAT IF he does not get the nomination at the Republican National Convention. What then? He does not (I heard him say it) intend on running as an independent candidate. Obviously if he DID do that, all of you guys and gals would vote for him, wouldnt' you? And would that not give the DEMOCRAT an automatic victory? I think that is what Ron apparently has decided to NOT run as an independent, unless enough of his supporters convince him otherwise....which would be a travesty, in my opinion.

What do you Ron Paul supporters, or anyone else, think about a NATIONAL PRIMARY election...everybody on the ballot...everyone with an equal chance among the real electorate?

I don't think I'm opposed to a national primary. I think I like the idea.

[dollfus46]

I'm all for it.

I say abolish the party system. Abolish the electoral college.

I'd like to see the party system disolved and every candidate get the same amount of money to campaign with. Say if you raised $20 mil, the government would give you $20 mil but that's all you could use. Those figures are arbitrary but you know what I mean. That way, money can't buy the election and you'd cut out many special interest groups and some "foreign investors"

[Reason]

I'd like to see the party system disolved and every candidate get the same amount of money to campaign with. Say if you raised $20 mil, the government would give you $20 mil but that's all you could use. Those figures are arbitrary but you know what I mean. That way, money can't buy the election and you'd cut out many special interest groups and some "foreign investors"

Agreed.

[dreamhippy]

OKay, now...all you Ron Paul Supporters......WHAT IF,,,,just WHAT IF he does not get the nomination at the Republican National Convention. What then? He does not (I heard him say it) intend on running as an independent candidate. Obviously if he DID do that, all of you guys and gals would vote for him, wouldnt' you? And would that not give the DEMOCRAT an automatic victory? I think that is what Ron apparently has decided to NOT run as an independent, unless enough of his supporters convince him otherwise....which would be a travesty, in my opinion.

What do you Ron Paul supporters, or anyone else, think about a NATIONAL PRIMARY election...everybody on the ballot...everyone with an equal chance among the real electorate?


I think just from what I see happening in this present election, that it would be a terrible idea. Why? Because the media would still tell you who is the "favorite" just as they are now and attempt to sway the votes. Some people will never invest the time to search out who the candidates really are and what they are really all about. But, they will still go vote. Those people will easily fall into the trap of voting for who has the most televised charisma, or the best hair-style, or the best tailor. John Edwards is a fine example. He could not have lasted a day in politics if it wasn`t for the unlearned voting for party rather than substance, and the uneducated being told by the media that he has a "boyish charm". Some folks take the pablum that the media spoon feeds them at face value and look no further. The Presidential office would quickly become chosen in a manner not unlike that of something like "Dancing with the Stars."

[Reason]

Some people will never invest the time to search out who the candidates really are and what they are really all about. But, they will still go vote. Those people will easily fall into the trap of voting for who has the most televised charisma, or the best hair-style, or the best tailor.

It has always been so, and always will be. There is no reason this should affect how we set up our system.

[dreamhippy]

I think I would rather have the electors who are devoted to picking the best do the picking, especially if they will pick Ron Paul`s intelligence over Mitt Romney`s hair or Mike Huckabee`s religion, and most especially if they completely disregard Giuliani as he deserves.

[Reason]

I think I would rather have the electors who are devoted to picking the best do the picking, especially if they will pick Ron Paul`s intelligence over Mitt Romney`s hair or Mike Huckabee`s religion, and most especially if they completely disregard Giuliani as he deserves.

I want my vote to count. I don't want it interpreted.

[dreamhippy]

Make the effort to become an elector.

[Conveyor Belt]

The electoral college comes down to how many rights we give to the states. In a centralized form of government, which we have, the electoral college system is best. It gives some representation to those states with low populations.

If we didn't have an electoral college, you would never see a presidential candidate in MS, LA or AL. They would campaign in NY, FL and CA. 95% of their time would be spent in these states. Also, these people would decide who the president was. You think your vote doesn't count now, get rid of the electoral college.

[dollfus46]

Agreed.

See? You're smarter than I first thought you were.:laugh:

[aaron]

Since Ron Paul doesn't believe in evolution, I know Valkorn won't be voting for him. :laugh:

[dollfus46]

Since Ron Paul doesn't believe in evolution, I know Valkorn won't be voting for him. :laugh:

Heh heh heh. No point in doing a survey on that one. You might check with his alter ego on here though........:-D

[Reason]

If we didn't have an electoral college, you would never see a presidential candidate in MS, LA or AL. They would campaign in NY, FL and CA. 95% of their time would be spent in these states.

It's already like that.

Look, if I vote for someone who ends up getting 49 percent of the vote here, my vote gets tossed in the trash when it could go toward a grand total.

If a candidate wins the most votes, they should be declared the winner.

The electoral college is an archaic and obsolete idea.

[hendrixfreak70]

I'm really torn with the issue. The electoral college is provided for by the Constitution. However, so is the income tax (which I oppose). The later came from an amendment in 1913 when most of Congress was out to Christmas and the 3/4 majority of states arguably was not reached. I think Ron Paul's stance on the issue is keep it because of the pro-liberty states. Also I know not the consequences if it were to stay or go. I do know that the election of 2000 brought 2 troubling problems with it, one was the attack on the Constitution (arguably the electoral college) and the Diebold voting machine. Rather Gore or Bush became President was irrelevant because they were the same people. So, to me, the electoral college was the target and the Diebold voting machine got it's dry run for the red herrin and voting fraud. Shit don't just happen for nothing.

[dollfus46]

The electoral college is an archaic and obsolete idea.
Only if your candidate wins the popular vote but loses in the electorial college.:bowrofl:

[Conveyor Belt]

Only if your candidate wins the popular vote but loses in the electorial college.:bowrofl:

Which, if I'm not mistaken, has only happened twice...

Where's that red states of america map at...

Please note the overwhelming geographic majority of the country that voted majority republican. The redder, the more republican. Also, note the very, very few places that voted majority democrat. This is from the 2004 election. Height indicates population.

http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/election2004/3d_viewpoint0.gif

[Pop]

Glenn Beck interview transcript from 12-18-2007

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0712/18/gb.01.html

[Conveyor Belt]

Full 42 minute interview

Ron Paul on Glenn Beck - Complete Interview

[Reason]

Which, if I'm not mistaken, has only happened twice...

How many times is too many? For me, it's one.

[dollfus46]

How many times is too many? For me, it's one.

The electoral college was created for a purpose and it works.

[Reason]

The electoral college was created for a purpose and it works.

The electoral college has defeated the popular vote four times - 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000.

With the electoral college, a candidate need only appeal to the people of the 11 states with the most electors. They win those states, they win the election. They can completely disregard the rest of the country.

It also makes it more difficult for a third-party candidate to win.

I understand the fear behind losing it. Candidates might then concentrate on population centers like New York and Los Angeles and ignore the people in Mississippi. (Which they already do)

So, I suppose solution would be to flatten out the electors so no candidate could win without winning the majority of the states.

[dreamhippy]

An Electoral College that better represents and incorporates political concern toward all the states is not a bad idea at all. But the current system (correct me if I am wrong) is based on population. An equal number of Electors per state some would say is not fairly representing the numbers. Maybe we should propose a BICAMERAL ELECTORAL COLLEGE patterned after the US Legislature. ???

[dreamhippy]

<TABLE class=MsoNormalTable style="BORDER-RIGHT: #0b198c 1pt solid; BORDER-TOP: #0b198c 1pt solid; BACKGROUND: #d1d1e1; BORDER-LEFT: #0b198c 1pt solid; WIDTH: 100%; BORDER-BOTTOM: #0b198c 1pt solid; mso-cellspacing: .7pt; mso-yfti-tbllook: 1184; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 0in 0in" cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=1><TBODY><TR style="mso-yfti-irow: 0; mso-yfti-firstrow: yes; mso-yfti-lastrow: yes"><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #0b198c; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #0b198c; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; BACKGROUND: #e1e4f2; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: #0b198c; PADDING-TOP: 0in; BORDER-BOTTOM: #0b198c"><TABLE class=MsoNormalTable style="WIDTH: 100%; mso-cellspacing: 4.5pt; mso-yfti-tbllook: 1184; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 0in 0in" cellSpacing=6 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR style="mso-yfti-irow: 0; mso-yfti-firstrow: yes; mso-yfti-lastrow: yes"><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ffffff; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #ffffff; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; BACKGROUND: #e1e4f2; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: #ffffff; PADDING-TOP: 0in; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ffffff"><V:p</V:p<O:p</O:p</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ffffff; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #ffffff; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: #ffffff; PADDING-TOP: 0in; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ffffff; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" noWrap></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius--and a lot of courage--to move in the opposite direction." -Albert Einstein

Congressman Paul wants to simplify things.....

[dreamhippy]

"The role of the military-industrial complex cannot be ignored;and since the marching orders come from the United Nations, the industrial complex is more international than ever."-Ron Paul

[Scarlett O'Hara]

Hey.........that map is cool!!!!!!!!!

[dreamhippy]

"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government." -Thomas Paine

[dollfus46]

The electoral college has defeated the popular vote four times - 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000.

With the electoral college, a candidate need only appeal to the people of the 11 states with the most electors. They win those states, they win the election. They can completely disregard the rest of the country.

It also makes it more difficult for a third-party candidate to win.

I understand the fear behind losing it. Candidates might then concentrate on population centers like New York and Los Angeles and ignore the people in Mississippi. (Which they already do)

So, I suppose solution would be to flatten out the electors so no candidate could win without winning the majority of the states.
There's obviously no simple solution. Hard to justify making Montana and New York equal. I don't have the answer nor even a good suggestion, so I prolly shouldn't comment or knock anyone else's idea. I 'spose that's why the electorial college is okay with me.

[onlyme]

There's obviously no simple solution. Hard to justify making Montana and New York equal. I don't have the answer nor even a good suggestion, so I prolly shouldn't comment or knock anyone else's idea. I 'spose that's why the electorial college is okay with me.

Go with the popular vote and justice is done. Why should one vote in New York count more/less than one vote in Montana?

[dollfus46]

Go with the popular vote and justice is done. Why should one vote in New York count more/less than one vote in Montana?
I have no idea. Just seems like the NE and far West would elect the President every four years that way:ohnoes:

[thornton04]

Hey Ron Paul Supporters! We are having a meetup at Donanelle's on Monday Feb. 4th at 6pm. Hope to see ya there.

[dreamhippy]

I plan to be there!

[Reason]

Ron Paul obliterated the other Republicans last night. Of course, over the course of an hour and a half of debate, he and Huckabee only got 10 minutes worth of questions.

Here's all his responses:

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/GbHUjMFzr-c&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/GbHUjMFzr-c&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[hendrixfreak70]

Now that Edwards is gone who is it you are for now?

[Reason]

Now that Edwards is gone who is it you are for now?

Well, I don't know.

I like Paul and Obama.

Paul has always been the logical and best choice despite my qualms over his stance on evolution. He's a strict constitutionalist, and we need that right now.

Obama has a great platform with realistic plans, plus he has that spark of hope and promise of ending the false political divide which is ruining my country. No one else can offer that.

I fear the media will continue to push Hillary and McCain, and the half-asleep American public will go along with it. After all, people actually seemed to care about Edward's haircut.

It's going to be hard to pick between another Clinton and a Bush apologist - but if it comes down to it, I'll just have to do my homework. I just hope everyone else will do the same instead of getting caught up in the soap opera bullshit.

[hendrixfreak70]

I have two problems with Obama: One, he is a CFR member, kinda like when you don't like Paul's view on evolution(which even I am unsure what it is) I don't like the fact that Obama belongs to that organization. He wants to spread the war that is in Iraq into Pakistan. Brilliant move there, we leave one country alone to start shit with another. We are setting ourselves up for failure with this globe-trotting set of ideals.

I also agree with you about the soap opera shit. I don't watch the news, I don't read the newspapers or listen to Rush or Michael Savage. I know what the Constitution says, what our Founding Fathers wanted policy wise on issues such as the economy, foreign and domestic issues etc. Only one person for me. At least you see the smokescreen. Most don't.

[Reason]

Good points.

Right now, we have no idea what they will actually do in office. After all, when he was at this point Bush told us he was going to be a conservative who wanted to end our reputation as the police of the world. Nope.

So, you must ignore the campaign rhetoric and go on their reputations, resumes and records. All of that is at your fingertips - just use Google or Wikipedia, or something. Don't depend on CNN or FOX. All media sources have an agenda - mostly creating drama to sell eyeballs to advertisers.

Also, many of these people have written books, all available at your local library. Read them with scrutiny and skepticism, but read them, you have the time.

If you do that, Ron Paul is the obvious choice. If he doesn't get the nomination, it gets far more complicated.

[Lumberg's Lackey]

you must ignore the campaign rhetoric and go on their reputations, resumes and records.

If everyone followed your advice then Paul would be a shoo in. He such a consistent record of voting against unconstitutional acts that he's been nicknamed "Dr. No".

[Luvia]

Ron Paul did own that debate.

What ticked me off is that he got very little time to speak (same w/ Huckabee)...and the way McCain and Romney looked at him when he did speak.

If you want to be president of the United States, you should have some grace and some respect for other people. I was really disappointed in McCain and Romney's facial expressions as he spoke. Rude and disrespectful.

The camera angles were totally geared towards McCain and Romney too...you can't tell it so much in that clip, but you could tell they had it set up to give the most face time to those two candidates.

Disgusting. The media disgusts me.

[dollfus46]

Ron Paul did own that debate.

What ticked me off is that he got very little time to speak (same w/ Huckabee)...and the way McCain and Romney looked at him when he did speak.

If you want to be president of the United States, you should have some grace and some respect for other people. I was really disappointed in McCain and Romney's facial expressions as he spoke. Rude and disrespectful.

The camera angles were totally geared towards McCain and Romney too...you can't tell it so much in that clip, but you could tell they had it set up to give the most face time to those two candidates.

Disgusting. The media disgusts me.
D'ju ever hear of Duncan Hunter? Tancredo? The media controls the elections. They will soon be indicating which Democrat they want you to vote for simply by their coverage.:smt086

[dreamhippy]

They (the media) have already been focusing on the top four Liberals on CNN and FOX: Hillary, Obama, McCain, and Romney, in that order.

[Luvia]

D'ju ever hear of Duncan Hunter? Tancredo? The media controls the elections. They will soon be indicating which Democrat they want you to vote for simply by their coverage.:smt086

I do remember Tancredo, because he was one of my favorites from the beginning. He rocked the illegal immigration issue hard core.

[CircusRide]

When is everyone going to drop the Ron Paul worship? He's not even getting the votes Nader and Perot got. You need to start looking for another candidate or elect not to vote.

[Conveyor Belt]

When is everyone going to drop the Ron Paul worship? He's not even getting the votes Nader and Perot got. You need to start looking for another candidate or elect not to vote.

Shhhhh!!! Let them swim in their kool-aid. They're having a fun party in Ron Paul land. They're the only one's believing their own hype.

[dreamhippy]

We`re just enjoying voting for and supporting the only candidate we do not have to be ashamed of. You should try it, you`d like it!

[Reason]

When is everyone going to drop the Ron Paul worship? He's not even getting the votes Nader and Perot got. You need to start looking for another candidate or elect not to vote.

This is among the worst advice I have ever received. I'll vote for who I believe to be the best candidate until I'm forced to pick the lesser of two evils, thanks.

Here's CNN's attempt at appeasing the gazillions of people who emailed them in protest of the debate:

<object type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" data="http://www.liveleak.com/player.swf?autostart=false&token=d38_1201787066" height="370" width="450">


</object>

[dollfus46]

This is among the worst advice I have ever received. I'll vote for who I believe to be the best candidate until I'm forced to pick the lesser of two evils, thanks.

Here's CNN's attempt at appeasing the gazillions of people who emailed them in protest of the debate:

<OBJECT type=application/x-shockwave-flash height=370 width=450 data=http://www.liveleak.com/player.swf?autostart=false&token=d38_1201787066 wmode="transparent">
&nbsp
&nbsp
</OBJECT>
What? Did they not invite him to the debate? I know how you feel, Reason, my candidate got the shaft from the media. They control the elections by who they cover and who they DON'T cover.

[hendrixfreak70]

Shhhhh!!! Let them swim in their kool-aid. They're having a fun party in Ron Paul land. They're the only one's believing their own hype.

I would rather vote for someone I believed in than vote for those who are appointed by the media for me to vote on. Sounds like to me you are a bandwagon guy. This year you probably love the Giants because they made it, next year whoever goes will be 'your' team. The reason I say this is the hypocritical attitude towards all of this. Just like 3 weeks ago you said if Paul doesn't pick up you are going with Obama. Why is that? Because you want to pick a winner? America really does need more sheep thoughts like that so we can go ahead and fall into the abyss rather than teetering on the brink. I stopped drinking kool-aid a long time ago when I stopped letting others (like you) decide for me.

[hendrixfreak70]

When is everyone going to drop the Ron Paul worship? He's not even getting the votes Nader and Perot got. You need to start looking for another candidate or elect not to vote.

If memory serves me correctly, and it usually doesn't anymore, Nader nor Perot ran in primaries. Therefore it is like comparing apples to oranges. Wait to see if Paul goes third party, then say it when it is over. Trust me after this is all over, I will not vote for anyone unless Paul is on the ticket.

[Conveyor Belt]

I would rather vote for someone I believed in than vote for those who are appointed by the media for me to vote on. Sounds like to me you are a bandwagon guy. This year you probably love the Giants because they made it, next year whoever goes will be 'your' team. The reason I say this is the hypocritical attitude towards all of this. Just like 3 weeks ago you said if Paul doesn't pick up you are going with Obama. Why is that? Because you want to pick a winner? America really does need more sheep thoughts like that so we can go ahead and fall into the abyss rather than teetering on the brink. I stopped drinking kool-aid a long time ago when I stopped letting others (like you) decide for me.

Once again, you are 100% wrong about me.

1) I hope the Giants lose. I don't have a 'team'.
2) I changed my mind about Paul for the good when his newsletters surfaced. I can't support anyone who would lend their name to that kind of think. Baby with bathwater, whatever... you are the company you keep.
3) I don't care who you support, I'm just tired of some of you acting like Paul is the second coming of Jesus.

The media in this country only decides things for those who allow themselves to be led around by the nose.

[hendrixfreak70]

Once again, you are 100% wrong about me.

1) I hope the Giants lose. I don't have a 'team'.
2) I changed my mind about Paul for the good when his newsletters surfaced. I can't support anyone who would lend their name to that kind of think. Baby with bathwater, whatever... you are the company you keep.
3) I don't care who you support, I'm just tired of some of you acting like Paul is the second coming of Jesus.

The media in this country only decides things for those who allow themselves to be led around by the nose.


You are 100% wrong about us. There was only one Jesus, and for those of us who believe, we know it. And yes I know you said some. We don't drink kool-aid as you call it, we are tired of people listening to the media, we don't care about what they have to say, newsletters and all. Pat Buchanan was on the verge of breaking big in 1992 and the media drudged up some old shit about him that wasn't true either, but since it was deemed racist by the media he lost all hope. Ironically he went on to ask Ezola Foster to be on his 2000 ticket, She was black and a woman. Point is, if you are going to dish (with the stupid kool-aid drinking cmments) we are going to give it back with comments about sheep and the like. Quid pro quo.

[dollfus46]

I would rather vote for someone I believed in than vote for those who are appointed by the media for me to vote on. Sounds like to me you are a bandwagon guy. This year you probably love the Giants because they made it, next year whoever goes will be 'your' team. The reason I say this is the hypocritical attitude towards all of this. Just like 3 weeks ago you said if Paul doesn't pick up you are going with Obama. Why is that? Because you want to pick a winner? America really does need more sheep thoughts like that so we can go ahead and fall into the abyss rather than teetering on the brink. I stopped drinking kool-aid a long time ago when I stopped letting others (like you) decide for me.
I'm proud to say that you can't call me a fair weather fan. I've been a Braves fan since the 70's when you could walk up to the ticket box and buy seats behind home plate on row 3, thirty minutes before the game. You had to wear a paper sack over your head and a clothespin on your nose. Heh heh heh. I was a Duncan Hunter fan since the beginning. But I see no point in writing his name in during the general elections. Also, things change. People here say some things that don't sound totally biased and you listen. I said "hmmmmmm, maybe I'll give Ron Paul another look, then." And I did. Still didn't like him but someone said something worth listening to. I'm sure it wasn't SueScribe nor Amanda though. Joking ya'll. Love you both.

[dollfus46]

When is everyone going to drop the Ron Paul worship? He's not even getting the votes Nader and Perot got. You need to start looking for another candidate or elect not to vote.

Everybody listen up. CR is fixing to tell us who to vote for because we obviously are too stupid to know NOT to vote for Ron Paul in the primaries. I may need help in the booth to figure it out though.

[dollfus46]

Shhhhh!!! Let them swim in their kool-aid. They're having a fun party in Ron Paul land. They're the only one's believing their own hype.
I just don't find arrogance attractive here, CB. You should know better than that. Perhaps you'll enlighten those Ron Paul backers as to whom is worthy of their most precious right as an American. But you should at least pay them well for their vote.:smt023

[dollfus46]

We`re just enjoying voting for and supporting the only candidate we do not have to be ashamed of. You should try it, you`d like it!
Nah, dreamhippy. He's just too pissed that you aren't bright enough to see you wasting your vote when you could use it to vote for someone HE approves of. I'm not a Ron Paul guy, but I admire your passion. I'm jealous that I don't have passion for any of them, even the one I will eventually vote for.

[dollfus46]

This is among the worst advice I have ever received. I'll vote for who I believe to be the best candidate until I'm forced to pick the lesser of two evils, thanks.

Here's CNN's attempt at appeasing the gazillions of people who emailed them in protest of the debate:

<OBJECT type=application/x-shockwave-flash height=370 width=450 data=http://www.liveleak.com/player.swf?autostart=false&token=d38_1201787066 wmode="transparent">
&nbsp
&nbsp
</OBJECT>
Oh I missed the part about "or elect not to vote". Sweet Jesus. If you don't think the vote is more than a right, it's a duty, then look back at the Iraqis' faces when they voted for the first time in their lives. And you are encouraging someone not to vote? If Hillary was the only candidate, I'd vote for Hillary. But by God, I'd vote.

[dreamhippy]

April 21, 1999 do the math, this is before 9/11

"But when a foreign war comes to our shores in the form of terrorism, we can be sure that our government will explain the need for further sacrifice of personal liberties to win this war against terrorism as well. Extensive preparations are already being made to fight urban and domestic violence, not by an enhanced local police force, but by a national police force with military characteristics."
-Congressman Ron Paul

Among other things that appeal to me, the man appears to be very far-sighted.

[fuzzis]

Yeah. Far-sighted. When he's drawing on our government's past actions when it comes to such things. It's not hard to be "far-sighted" when the writing is on the wall. Even in 1999. :smt105

[dreamhippy]

Good point! I predicted war with Iraq IF Bush was elected, before Bush was elected. But who else in Washington was predicting a War with Iraq, or a War on Terror? Many forget the lessons of the past. An election year similar to this one for lack of a real choice among candidates led to the War between the States. People do not care for disenfranchisement. It will still be true next millenium.

[hendrixfreak70]

Yeah. Far-sighted. When he's drawing on our government's past actions when it comes to such things. It's not hard to be "far-sighted" when the writing is on the wall. Even in 1999. :smt105

Well this makes him unique if nothing else. Perhaps the only one other person who saw this coming would have arguably been Dennis Kucinich. Past actions of government? You sound like me, a conspiracy theorist. However we have never had more of military/police presence in the world or the United States. There is not much to compare there without sounding like a conspiracy theorist. The only close thing to this is the Cold War. We kinda know now that it was not as bad as it was said to have been. Paul is right about this but somehow those who don't like him will use another excuse to say he was wrong or validate his arguments by saying the writing was on the wall.

[dollfus46]

I rarely see anything coming until it happens or until someone who has predicted it has it come to fruition. Then I say, "yeah. I saw that coming." Heh heh heh. The only thing I see coming is a religious civil war in the U.S. Maybe not in my lifetime. But you're going to see the Christians get pushed as far as they will get pushed before pushing back. I believe there IS a point at which that will happen. Oh it might not be as big as the War for States Rights, but it will be bigger than the war against doctors who abort babies. Just a prediction.

[dreamhippy]

By GLENN ADAMS – 1 hour ago
AUGUSTA, Maine (AP) — Mitt Romney coasted to a win in presidential preference voting by Maine Republicans on Saturday, claiming his third victory in a caucus state and fourth overall.
The former Massachusetts governor had 52 percent of the vote with 68 percent of the towns holding caucuses reporting. John McCain trailed with 21 percent, Ron Paul was third with 19 percent, and Mike Huckabee had 6 percent. Undecided votes accounted for 2 percent.

[aaron]

I thought Ron Paul's responses at the Reagan Library were great. Others thought they were insane...

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/fKsC_0fMjr0&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/fKsC_0fMjr0&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[dreamhippy]

I wish I had a printed text of it, since this PC has such low audio.

[Reason]

Whelp, looks like Ron Paul is done for, not that we didn't expect as much. If he's still in the race, I'll vote for him. Otherwise, I'll vote for the one least likely to make poor Supreme Court appointments. It was fun.

...you're going to see the Christians get pushed as far as they will get pushed before pushing back. I believe there IS a point at which that will happen. Oh it might not be as big as the War for States Rights, but it will be bigger than the war against doctors who abort babies. Just a prediction...

How are Christians being oppressed? Not trolling, and not expecting to derail this thread, I just want to hear why you think this.

[dollfus46]

Whelp, looks like Ron Paul is done for, not that we didn't expect as much. If he's still in the race, I'll vote for him. Otherwise, I'll vote for the one least likely to make poor Supreme Court appointments. It was fun.



How are Christians being oppressed? Not trolling, and not expecting to derail this thread, I just want to hear why you think this.

Your question alone, tells me it's pointless to get into a debate with you on this. I've been there. We're being oppressed..... No you aren't. Yes we are. No you aren't. Suffice it to say I believe it. Where did I come up with it? I pulled it out of my a$$. The radical Islamists are doing it today. Christians have done it before. They called it the Crusades. I believe there are enough radical Christians who will come after the secularists. It seems like a good bet, Reason.;) Sing along.......I want to be around to pick up the pieces........That song may be too old for many of you. :kekeke:

[Lumberg's Lackey]

Not sure it's completely over as much as the MSM would like to think so. There's talk of a brokered convention because of the number of delegates that Paul is getting. Additionally, Paul's contributions are large and growing (unlike other candidates who had to loan themselves money - $5m for Hillary in late Jan.) and predicted to be already large enough to carry him to the convention.


“Our goal has always been to walk into the national GOP convention with as many delegates as possible,” said Ron Paul 2008 campaign manager Lew Moore. “The number of delegates we won yesterday could very well be the difference in a Convention where no one has a first-ballot majority. With Dr. Paul’s home state of Texas coming up, we feel we can enter the convention with a substantial number of delegates.”
In an agreement first reported by West Virginia television station WSAZ, Ron Paul delegates were secured through an agreement with the Mike Huckabee campaign at the West Virginia state convention early Tuesday. Ron Paul delegates to the state convention swung their sizable support to Huckabee – putting Huckabee over the top – in exchange for the delegates.
Additionally the results of the Louisiana Caucus may still change in favor of Ron Paul, where an ongoing legal challenge may result in most of that state’s delegates going towards Ron Paul after state GOP officials violated their own rules to improperly put delegates from other campaigns on the ballots.

[dollfus46]

Not sure it's completely over as much as the MSM would like to think so. There's talk of a brokered convention because of the number of delegates that Paul is getting. Additionally, Paul's contributions are large and growing (unlike other candidates who had to loan themselves money - $5m for Hillary in late Jan.) and predicted to be already large enough to carry him to the convention.


“Our goal has always been to walk into the national GOP convention with as many delegates as possible,” said Ron Paul 2008 campaign manager Lew Moore. “The number of delegates we won yesterday could very well be the difference in a Convention where no one has a first-ballot majority. With Dr. Paul’s home state of Texas coming up, we feel we can enter the convention with a substantial number of delegates.”
In an agreement first reported by West Virginia television station WSAZ, Ron Paul delegates were secured through an agreement with the Mike Huckabee campaign at the West Virginia state convention early Tuesday. Ron Paul delegates to the state convention swung their sizable support to Huckabee – putting Huckabee over the top – in exchange for the delegates.
Additionally the results of the Louisiana Caucus may still change in favor of Ron Paul, where an ongoing legal challenge may result in most of that state’s delegates going towards Ron Paul after state GOP officials violated their own rules to improperly put delegates from other campaigns on the ballots.
Interesting scenario. I still like the McBane/Condi Rice ticket. What a hoot that would be. The pundits say McBane has to appoint a conservative. You would solidify the south and split the black and female vote, by adding a Southern, black female to the ticket. I can hear the explosion from here. :kekeke: I'd vote for that ticket. Talk about serious experience in the workings of Washington and foreign policy!!! That's a Repugnican slam dunk. Coup de Gras.

[Lumberg's Lackey]

I'm sure most political experts expect Ron Paul to drop out after Super Tuesday. They expect this because they mistakenly believe Ron Paul is simply a politician who wants to be President; they don't realize that he is actually the leader of something much bigger. The 90+% of people who didn't vote for him today don't understand this either. But there is a chance they will by the brokered convention if the message I attempt to explain below gets out to them. And if it isn't this year, or the next, or the next, it will happen as long as we who do know why we vote for him don't get caught up in politics.
How often have you heard someone say, "I don't really pay attention to politics" and then follow it up with a meager "but I probably should"? The reason often given for not knowing more is that it is just "too complicated." And there is a reason it is complicated:
People vote based on their personal beliefs.
If you believe in the right of a woman to choose, you vote Democrat.
If you believe in the right of an unborn child to live, you vote Republican.
If you believe that the government should provide universal healthcare, you vote Democrat.
If you believe that spreading democracy is the best way to protect us from terrorists, you vote Republican.
If you believe that gay people and minorities have collective rights, you vote Democrat.
If you believe that Christians have collective rights, you vote Republican.
How often have you heard that as an educated voter you should study the issues and then vote for the candidate who most closely shares your beliefs as you on those issues? How many people have told you that they voted for someone because that candidate believes in what the person talking to you believes in?
The paradigm shift that must occur for our country to be what it was intended to be is to stop asking this ridiculous question and start voting on the one and only issue that should matter: which candidate has the best ability to do what they are sworn in to do? I have asked about 50 people over the last week if they knew what it was that an elected federal government official was supposed to do--what they swear they will do--and not surprisingly not a single one so far has known.
Why? Because the discussion for so long has been based on voting based on what you believe, and there are so many different beliefs, that the whole thing has become "complicated." Do you know what these officials are supposed to do? If you do, congratulations, you are probably already voting for the one candidate who stands out above all the rest because of this candidate's proven ability to do it. If you don't, read on, and if you are intelligent you will come to the same decision other people already have.
The reason voting for your beliefs is the wrong way to go about voting is that your candidate's actually following through on his/her campaign commitments may ultimately lead to a future where your beliefs may not matter at all. Huh? Let me explain.
Despite popular belief, the Constitution does not grant us our freedom or rights as American citizens. These "self-evident truths" are part of (depending on your personal beliefs) derived either from your Creator or from natural law. A person born in a place where no government existed would indeed be free, but his freedom would not be protected against another's freedom. It was with this concept in mind that our nation's founders drafted the Constitution. It wasn't to give us freedom, which would necessarily imply that we aren't free unless the government allows us to be; it was to create a government that not only allowed a person to keep his natural state of freedom, so long as it didn't interfere with another's; this by turn protected his freedom against the use of theirs to deprive him of his. Therefore, the government as established by the Constitution was created for one reason: to protect the freedom with which we are all born.
Because the people who created this document had just pledged their "lives, fortunes, and sacred honor" on the line in order to regain this freedom from an oppressive government, they made sure when they wrote it that if it was followed no such government could ever exist in our country. It's not that these men were infallible demigods (although they were pretty dang smart), it was that they understood how much freedom cost and how much it was worth. They wanted to make sure that their sacrifice didn't go to waste.
Just as a successful progenitor will create specific rules for the trust he leaves his family, which if followed will ensure their wealth; our founders created a trust for our freedom. And much like the heirs who have little appreciation for the sacrifice of the person who created this wealth for them take what they have for granted and sometimes squander it all by not following the rules; we are doing the same thing when we ignore the rules of the trust fund of freedom left for us.
It is this freedom that allows you as an individual to believe what you choose to believe, to freely express your beliefs as long as doing so does not interfere with other individual's rights to believe what they choose to believe. The founders were also intelligent enough to realize that times and situations would change. That is why the document came complete with easy to read instruction included on how to change it should times demand it. This process is called amending the Constitution, and the change is called, duh, an Amendment. And while changing the Constitution is not complicated, it is not easy.
That is by design. The founders knew from personal experience that the greatest threat to freedom was the government which is why the power of the government is incredibly limited in the Constitution. They realized that every law passed, regardless of how good the intention, could potentially damage the freedom of the individual since the enforcement of that law would require a sacrifice by the people (either in money or personal liberty).
Yet they also knew that there could be an idea or philosophy that came along which would gain the support of enough citizens that they would decide to allow the government to adopt and enforce it as law. This is why free speech is so important. It allows a way for these ideas to manifest. If enough people think it's a good idea, then the Constitution can be amended. But unless the people decide to allow the government to make such laws by amending the Constitution, the last line of Article 1, Section 8 clearly states that the federal government has no power to do so, and the 10th Amendment further solidifies this.
Unfortunately, most people hated history class. And the Constitution is something they learned about there. Each time the government decides to do something that is a "good idea" based on some "belief of philosophy" in order to solve some problem that pops up, the power of the government increases, and the freedom and rights of the individual decrease. Because most people slept through history class and don't realize how important the Constitution is the government has become incredibly powerful by creating laws in order to solve problems that they have absolutely no right to create to begin with.
What most Americans don't realize is that the the Constitution isn't an archaic document that was written for "back then"; it is a Contract between we the people and our government. And we the people dictated the terms of that Contract. Every time the government decides it wants to do something in the best interest of the people that it isn't allowed to do, it violates that contract.
Think of it like this: If you had a contract with someone to build a house for you, for a set price you would expect to receive exactly what you agreed to for exactly the price agreed upon. If the builder knew that you hadn't read the contract he could give you less; he could also charge you more, and you would never know. This would benefit the builder but it would harm you. Similarly, if the builder just decided that your house would look better with brick instead of vinyl and decided to build it that way although you didn't ask for it, you would be outraged when you were expected to pay for the additions he made without authorization. If the builder decided that you should have a brick house, and explained that to you, and you agreed; you could then make that change--by changing the contract. If you wanted something else added that was important enough to you to give up something for it, you could then go to the builder and ask him to do it (he would likely oblige since he would receive more money) and once again, you would change the contract. But anything done without changing the contract would without question be detrimental to the party giving up something and be exploited by the party that gains something, regardless of the intent. Which brings us back to voting based on your beliefs.
When you vote based on your beliefs instead of voting based on who is most capable of doing the job they swear they will do, you are essentially saying, "I'm okay with having my contract violated as long as the government thinks it's a good idea; since the person I voted for claims to believe what I believe, it probably will be a good idea."
But what happens when your candidate doesn't win? Well then, you blame the other people who voted based on their beliefs for ruining your country. If you are a Republican, you blame FDR's "good idea" called the New Deal for creating the welfare state. If you are a Democrat, you blame the Republican's "good idea" of democratizing the Middle East for the war in Iraq. The thing both of these "good ideas" have in common is that there is absolutely nothing in the Contract that allows them to begin with, but that matters little if the people haven't read it.
Of course, neither party points this out because if the people actually understood that their Contract was being violated when the party out of power got their turn to be in power again, they wouldn't be able to exploit the Contract themselves. That's why winning elections by getting you to vote your beliefs is more important than getting you to vote on the one thing that should matter: the person with the best ability to do the job they were sworn in to do. Still wondering what it is they swear to do?
It's the last sentence of Article 2, Section 1 of that Contract. If you still don't see why it's important for you to read it, I'll just put it here for you:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Pretty simple, huh?
There's only one candidate who can say that he has done this without fail for 20 years. Congressman Ron Paul. Of course, both parties want you to think he's crazy because if he were elected the people would see how simple this government thing really is, start paying attention, and regain their freedom and power (which would take it from the politicians) because he would honor the people's end of the Contract.
If you watch every debate, he has never criticized the Democrats for America's problems and sometimes seems to blame Republicans. And despite what Republicans would have you believe, it isn't because he's a pacifist liberal in disguise. It's because he knows it's not the Democrats who are the problem. It's both parties. And it's because they violate the Contract between we the people and our government. And we seem to tacitly endorse this because we voted based on our beliefs instead of voting for candidates who would ensure we had the right to hold those beliefs.
If you are a Republican/Democrat first, Conservative/Liberal second, and an American third vote your beliefs. If you are an American first, vote for someone who will defend the very thing that protects your right to be what an American is supposed to be: Free. That choice is as simple as government was supposed to be before politics got in the way. Don't sacrifice what you want most (freedom) for what you want at the moment (someone to solve your problems). It may be too late for Super Tuesday, but as long as the GOP remains divided this will end in September at the brokered convention which gives more time for the message to spread.
Your fellow American,
John Armstrong
As always, unlike the NFL, you have the author's permission to rebroadcast, retransmit, reproduce, or do anything else you'd like with this article to promote the Restoration of our Republic.
strongarmedjohn@yahoo.com

[CircusRide]

I'm going to need the de-coder ring to read that. As long as it is, it's got to have a hidden message in it.

[Lumberg's Lackey]

My apologies. I didn't realize the full length until after I posted it. Copied from an email with smaller font.:oops:

[Reason]

A lot of fluff in there, let me boil it down for everyone:

People vote based on their personal beliefs...

(they should instead)...start voting on the one and only issue that should matter: which candidate has the best ability to do what they are sworn in to do?

Do you know what these officials are supposed to do?

A person born in a place where no government existed would indeed be free, but his freedom would not be protected against another's freedom. It was with this concept in mind that our nation's founders drafted the Constitution...

It is this freedom that allows you as an individual to believe what you choose to believe, to freely express your beliefs as long as doing so does not interfere with other individual's rights to believe what they choose to believe...

The founders knew from personal experience that the greatest threat to freedom was the government which is why the power of the government is incredibly limited in the Constitution...

Still wondering what it is they swear to do?

It's the last sentence of Article 2, Section 1 of that Contract. If you still don't see why it's important for you to read it, I'll just put it here for you:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Pretty simple, huh?
There's only one candidate who can say that he has done this without fail for 20 years. Congressman Ron Paul.

John ArmstrongI agree with this. You keep voting against your perceived enemies in each presidential election, instead of voting for the candidate who will allow both you and your perceived enemies to enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Stop it.

[hendrixfreak70]

Hey Reason, you are more than welcome to join our meetup group. http://ronpaul.meetup.com/582/ We plan on staying together rather or not Ron Paul gets the nomination because we believe we can also influence local elections as well. We already have one 'friend' in the Mississippi Senate (Parker Dykes). This 'revolution' cannot be stopped now nor should it. It is all about the message, not the man.

[dollfus46]

I'm sure most political experts expect Ron Paul to drop out after Super Tuesday. They expect this because they mistakenly believe Ron Paul is simply a politician who wants to be President; they don't realize that he is actually the leader of something much bigger. The 90+% of people who didn't vote for him today don't understand this either. But there is a chance they will by the brokered convention if the message I attempt to explain below gets out to them. And if it isn't this year, or the next, or the next, it will happen as long as we who do know why we vote for him don't get caught up in politics.

How often have you heard someone say, "I don't really pay attention to politics" and then follow it up with a meager "but I probably should"? The reason often given for not knowing more is that it is just "too complicated." And there is a reason it is complicated:
People vote based on their personal beliefs.
If you believe in the right of a woman to choose, you vote Democrat.
If you believe in the right of an unborn child to live, you vote Republican.
If you believe that the government should provide universal healthcare, you vote Democrat.
If you believe that spreading democracy is the best way to protect us from terrorists, you vote Republican.
If you believe that gay people and minorities have collective rights, you vote Democrat.
If you believe that Christians have collective rights, you vote Republican.
How often have you heard that as an educated voter you should study the issues and then vote for the candidate who most closely shares your beliefs as you on those issues? How many people have told you that they voted for someone because that candidate believes in what the person talking to you believes in?
The paradigm shift that must occur for our country to be what it was intended to be is to stop asking this ridiculous question and start voting on the one and only issue that should matter: which candidate has the best ability to do what they are sworn in to do? I have asked about 50 people over the last week if they knew what it was that an elected federal government official was supposed to do--what they swear they will do--and not surprisingly not a single one so far has known.
Why? Because the discussion for so long has been based on voting based on what you believe, and there are so many different beliefs, that the whole thing has become "complicated." Do you know what these officials are supposed to do? If you do, congratulations, you are probably already voting for the one candidate who stands out above all the rest because of this candidate's proven ability to do it. If you don't, read on, and if you are intelligent you will come to the same decision other people already have.
The reason voting for your beliefs is the wrong way to go about voting is that your candidate's actually following through on his/her campaign commitments may ultimately lead to a future where your beliefs may not matter at all. Huh? Let me explain.
Despite popular belief, the Constitution does not grant us our freedom or rights as American citizens. These "self-evident truths" are part of (depending on your personal beliefs) derived either from your Creator or from natural law. A person born in a place where no government existed would indeed be free, but his freedom would not be protected against another's freedom. It was with this concept in mind that our nation's founders drafted the Constitution. It wasn't to give us freedom, which would necessarily imply that we aren't free unless the government allows us to be; it was to create a government that not only allowed a person to keep his natural state of freedom, so long as it didn't interfere with another's; this by turn protected his freedom against the use of theirs to deprive him of his. Therefore, the government as established by the Constitution was created for one reason: to protect the freedom with which we are all born.
Because the people who created this document had just pledged their "lives, fortunes, and sacred honor" on the line in order to regain this freedom from an oppressive government, they made sure when they wrote it that if it was followed no such government could ever exist in our country. It's not that these men were infallible demigods (although they were pretty dang smart), it was that they understood how much freedom cost and how much it was worth. They wanted to make sure that their sacrifice didn't go to waste.
Just as a successful progenitor will create specific rules for the trust he leaves his family, which if followed will ensure their wealth; our founders created a trust for our freedom. And much like the heirs who have little appreciation for the sacrifice of the person who created this wealth for them take what they have for granted and sometimes squander it all by not following the rules; we are doing the same thing when we ignore the rules of the trust fund of freedom left for us.
It is this freedom that allows you as an individual to believe what you choose to believe, to freely express your beliefs as long as doing so does not interfere with other individual's rights to believe what they choose to believe. The founders were also intelligent enough to realize that times and situations would change. That is why the document came complete with easy to read instruction included on how to change it should times demand it. This process is called amending the Constitution, and the change is called, duh, an Amendment. And while changing the Constitution is not complicated, it is not easy.
That is by design. The founders knew from personal experience that the greatest threat to freedom was the government which is why the power of the government is incredibly limited in the Constitution. They realized that every law passed, regardless of how good the intention, could potentially damage the freedom of the individual since the enforcement of that law would require a sacrifice by the people (either in money or personal liberty).
Yet they also knew that there could be an idea or philosophy that came along which would gain the support of enough citizens that they would decide to allow the government to adopt and enforce it as law. This is why free speech is so important. It allows a way for these ideas to manifest. If enough people think it's a good idea, then the Constitution can be amended. But unless the people decide to allow the government to make such laws by amending the Constitution, the last line of Article 1, Section 8 clearly states that the federal government has no power to do so, and the 10th Amendment further solidifies this.
Unfortunately, most people hated history class. And the Constitution is something they learned about there. Each time the government decides to do something that is a "good idea" based on some "belief of philosophy" in order to solve some problem that pops up, the power of the government increases, and the freedom and rights of the individual decrease. Because most people slept through history class and don't realize how important the Constitution is the government has become incredibly powerful by creating laws in order to solve problems that they have absolutely no right to create to begin with.
What most Americans don't realize is that the the Constitution isn't an archaic document that was written for "back then"; it is a Contract between we the people and our government. And we the people dictated the terms of that Contract. Every time the government decides it wants to do something in the best interest of the people that it isn't allowed to do, it violates that contract.
Think of it like this: If you had a contract with someone to build a house for you, for a set price you would expect to receive exactly what you agreed to for exactly the price agreed upon. If the builder knew that you hadn't read the contract he could give you less; he could also charge you more, and you would never know. This would benefit the builder but it would harm you. Similarly, if the builder just decided that your house would look better with brick instead of vinyl and decided to build it that way although you didn't ask for it, you would be outraged when you were expected to pay for the additions he made without authorization. If the builder decided that you should have a brick house, and explained that to you, and you agreed; you could then make that change--by changing the contract. If you wanted something else added that was important enough to you to give up something for it, you could then go to the builder and ask him to do it (he would likely oblige since he would receive more money) and once again, you would change the contract. But anything done without changing the contract would without question be detrimental to the party giving up something and be exploited by the party that gains something, regardless of the intent. Which brings us back to voting based on your beliefs.
When you vote based on your beliefs instead of voting based on who is most capable of doing the job they swear they will do, you are essentially saying, "I'm okay with having my contract violated as long as the government thinks it's a good idea; since the person I voted for claims to believe what I believe, it probably will be a good idea."
But what happens when your candidate doesn't win? Well then, you blame the other people who voted based on their beliefs for ruining your country. If you are a Republican, you blame FDR's "good idea" called the New Deal for creating the welfare state. If you are a Democrat, you blame the Republican's "good idea" of democratizing the Middle East for the war in Iraq. The thing both of these "good ideas" have in common is that there is absolutely nothing in the Contract that allows them to begin with, but that matters little if the people haven't read it.
Of course, neither party points this out because if the people actually understood that their Contract was being violated when the party out of power got their turn to be in power again, they wouldn't be able to exploit the Contract themselves. That's why winning elections by getting you to vote your beliefs is more important than getting you to vote on the one thing that should matter: the person with the best ability to do the job they were sworn in to do. Still wondering what it is they swear to do?
It's the last sentence of Article 2, Section 1 of that Contract. If you still don't see why it's important for you to read it, I'll just put it here for you:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Pretty simple, huh?
There's only one candidate who can say that he has done this without fail for 20 years. Congressman Ron Paul. Of course, both parties want you to think he's crazy because if he were elected the people would see how simple this government thing really is, start paying attention, and regain their freedom and power (which would take it from the politicians) because he would honor the people's end of the Contract.
If you watch every debate, he has never criticized the Democrats for America's problems and sometimes seems to blame Republicans. And despite what Republicans would have you believe, it isn't because he's a pacifist liberal in disguise. It's because he knows it's not the Democrats who are the problem. It's both parties. And it's because they violate the Contract between we the people and our government. And we seem to tacitly endorse this because we voted based on our beliefs instead of voting for candidates who would ensure we had the right to hold those beliefs.
If you are a Republican/Democrat first, Conservative/Liberal second, and an American third vote your beliefs. If you are an American first, vote for someone who will defend the very thing that protects your right to be what an American is supposed to be: Free. That choice is as simple as government was supposed to be before politics got in the way. Don't sacrifice what you want most (freedom) for what you want at the moment (someone to solve your problems). It may be too late for Super Tuesday, but as long as the GOP remains divided this will end in September at the brokered convention which gives more time for the message to spread.
Your fellow American,
John Armstrong
As always, unlike the NFL, you have the author's permission to rebroadcast, retransmit, reproduce, or do anything else you'd like with this article to promote the Restoration of our Republic.
strongarmedjohn@yahoo.com

:roflwtf: If you can say that in 50 words or less I'll read it.

[dreamhippy]

Vote for Ron Paul, because he is the one candidate who will stand up for ALL of your Constitutional rights and that is the premiere criteria by which all Presidential candidates should be judged!

[jojobeans1120]

While this may be true, he has a snowball's chance in hell of actually getting the nomination.
I think it best at this point, to go for the next best thing, being Huckabee.
I HIGHLY doubt that he's going to pull it off either, but I don't have it in me to vote for McCain. As far as being a conservative, McCain's not even in the ballpark. :smt009

[dreamhippy]

You are probably right. Still, give this a read:

The Mouse that roared: Why Ron Paul won the election (http://dougwead.wordpress.com/2008/02/06/the-mouse-that-roared-why-ron-paul-won-the-election/)

February 6, 2008 by dougwead

Well now, Republicans say, we have a nominee. That may very well be but there was only one clear winner in the confusing GOP nominating contest and it was not John McCain. The winner was Ron Paul. And the effects of his win will be felt for years to come.

Ron Paul made a classic political mistake. He told the truth. In debate after debate he pointed at his party, his president, his fellow contenders for the GOP nomination, shouting aloud like the little boy in the proverbial story, “they have no clothes” and lo and behold, we looked and they didn’t. They were all naked.

He showed that the conservative movement has lost its way, its moral authority and its logic. He showed us that we have become a red team versus blue team. That since we have decided that this is a political war and all normal rules are suspended, conservatives can do liberal things to win it. Conservatives can run up big deficits if it helps their side win. They can dole out needless pork if it elects another “conservative” to congress. They can go to war if it makes their president look like a leader and wins him another term.

But in the process, Ron Paul showed us, that we have lost our way. We are no longer conservatives. We are fighting for power not for principles. We have become corrupted by the process and the only way back is to retrace our steps and find all the things we discarded along he way.

Barry Goldwater lighted a similar fire with his Conscience of a Conservative. Its truth and arguments were so obvious and so honest that one laughed aloud while reading it. But Goldwater, himself, was doomed to political defeat. And Ron Paul had no chance to win this election either. One could see that when he first opened his mouth.

And yet, the words and arguments of Ron Paul are still resonating. They still hang over this election. They are haunting and troubling. They are producing blogs and papers and books and like Goldwater’s revolution they will one day very likely produce their own Ronald Reagan. And when those heady days happen a small but hearty band of pioneers, who first had the nerve to join him and start shouting from the street, “They aren’t wearing any clothes,” will be able to say that they could see what the country missed. They were there when history was made.

John McCain and his poorly chosen words, of staying in Iraq a hundred years, have almost guaranteed that he will be the answer to the trivia question, who was the Republican candidate who lost to the ticket that claimed the first woman and black for the presidency? Another question may very well be, “What other candidate ran that year and launched the movement that has dominated national politics for the last generation?”

And the answer will be Ron Paul.

[aaron]

Some of my sources are reporting that Ron Paul is out.

[N40th]

From Instapundit to:

http://rsmccain.blogspot.com/2008/02/ron-paul-thanks-chumps.html

which contains:

http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/02/08/ron-paul-rules-out-3rd-party-run-scales-down-campaign/

[N40th]

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

It's on the front page. Goodbye, Ron!

[dreamhippy]

JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, I COPIED THIS:

He isnt dropping out or suspending anything...

http://people.ronpaul2008.com/campaign-updates
A few news sources are misreporting Ron Paul’s e-mail from last night. The presidential campaign is not ending, not being suspended, and not even drawing down. It’s slimming down and ramping up — with over twenty states having already voted, we’ve shed staff, and we’re concentrating financial and organization resources on the remaining states. We’re going to the convention, and we’re fighting for every vote and every National Delegate along the way.

[dreamhippy]

http://www.featherlessbiped.com/6696/NORIGHTS/dontneed.gif






















Ron Paul wants us to keep ALL our GOD-GIVEN rights. The other candidates are like this cartoon.

[dollfus46]

Ron isn't doing well. I will fight for his right to be in there, but he's embarrassing himself now. When people start giggling it's time to get out.

[hendrixfreak70]

I have always said that it wasn't about him winning. It sure would be nice, but it is about the message of personal responsibility and freedom.

[dollfus46]

I have always said that it wasn't about him winning. It sure would be nice, but it is about the message of personal responsibility and freedom.
But, hendrix, I think we got it now, and aren't impressed. But, as I said before, I envy your enthusiasm for him. You go big guy.:clap:

[hendrixfreak70]

There are honestly many people that have never heard of Ron Paul. I have experienced this first hand. How could the party nominate a liberal like McCain? If everyone in the (R) party would vote along the lines of conservative values then Paul would be there. But since not many people really care, it is for naught. I am not distressed at all about this but rather charged up about it, we will affect local politics and keep the dream alive. Bet that! :)

[Luvia]

There are honestly many people that have never heard of Ron Paul. I have experienced this first hand. How could the party nominate a liberal like McCain? If everyone in the (R) party would vote along the lines of conservative values then Paul would be there. But since not many people really care, it is for naught. I am not distressed at all about this but rather charged up about it, we will affect local politics and keep the dream alive. Bet that! :)

That's very true. I talk to people everyday who don't know who he is. If you watch any election coverage on the news, you have to wait a LONG time to hear his name mentioned.

To me, that's just scary. Whether or not you'd vote for him or not, we should be able to hear the views of everyone who runs for president. Instead we hear mostly about the ones deemed "electable" (deemed that way by god knows who).

[dollfus46]

That's very true. I talk to people everyday who don't know who he is. .

More proof that there are people who shouldn't have the right to vote.:-D People never heard of Tancredo nor Duncan Hunter. Now the Repugnicans are whinning because their is no conservative choice. I just want to bitch slap 'um.:smt102

[onlyme]

There are honestly many people that have never heard of Ron Paul. I have experienced this first hand. How could the party nominate a liberal like McCain? If everyone in the (R) party would vote along the lines of conservative values then Paul would be there. But since not many people really care, it is for naught. I am not distressed at all about this but rather charged up about it, we will affect local politics and keep the dream alive. Bet that! :)

People who have never heard of Ron Paul ( or Kucinich, Gravel etc. ) don't care about politics. He may not get the exposure of others but if one reads the papers ( no, not the National Enquirer ) then one should have heard about him. I think that too many Americans have a very lackadaisical attitude when it comes to their right/duty to vote. They either don't bother to vote or they don't bother to find any information. Laziness and indifference rule.

[dreamhippy]

That's very true. I talk to people everyday who don't know who he is. If you watch any election coverage on the news, you have to wait a LONG time to hear his name mentioned.

To me, that's just scary. Whether or not you'd vote for him or not, we should be able to hear the views of everyone who runs for president. Instead we hear mostly about the ones deemed "electable" (deemed that way by god knows who).


To me, it seems the media is telling the populace who to vote for and blatantly attempting to influence our vote when they "report" who is or isn`t going to be a potentially electable candidate or a potential nominee. I cannot help but notice how often the media darlings (Like Hillary, Obama, and the other liberal, John McCain) get free publicity when they get reported on as "news". Our local news doesn`t even bother to mention anyone but Obama (they even tell us where to go to sign up to support him). Like you say, I have to wait a VERY LONG TIME to get any news on my candidate and the only one I will vote for for President this year, Ron Paul.

[N40th]

Some of my sources are reporting that Ron Paul is out.

http://www.rightontheright.com/node/3233

Paul is losing his Congressional seat according to current polling, 43-32, with three weeks to go. This despite presidential campaign funds going toward his smaller campaign.

The word is that he'll be officially out of the pres race by March 4. Chances are pretty good he'll be out of government altogether soon.

[dollfus46]

http://www.rightontheright.com/node/3233

Paul is losing his Congressional seat according to current polling, 43-32, with three weeks to go. This despite presidential campaign funds going toward his smaller campaign.

The word is that he'll be officially out of the pres race by March 4. Chances are pretty good he'll be out of government altogether soon.
Not my problem. He belongs to Texas. Maybe he'll take Nasty Nancy, Hateful Harry, and Rudolph Kennedy with him.:kekeke:

[dreamhippy]

http://www.rightontheright.com/node/3233

Paul is losing his Congressional seat according to current polling, 43-32, with three weeks to go. This despite presidential campaign funds going toward his smaller campaign.

The word is that he'll be officially out of the pres race by March 4. Chances are pretty good he'll be out of government altogether soon.


Presidential campaign funds are NOT being spent on saving his seat in the House. Feel free to donate funds to his campaign FOR THAT PURPOSE.

[dreamhippy]

Top Three Contributors to Ron Paul are U.S. Army, Navy and Air Force (http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/RonPaul2008/~3/235069701/top-three-contr.html) (2/14/08)

Message of strong national defense and strictly following the Constitution resonates with American servicemen and women
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA – According to opensecrets.org, the top three contributors to Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul’s campaign are from the U.S. Army, U.S. Navy and U.S. Air Force respectively.
“No matter how you measure it, Dr. Paul has the support of our nation’s brave servicemen and women,” said Kent Snyder, Ron Paul 2008 campaign chairman. “His message of a strong national defense, and only going to war with a declaration of war – as mandated by the Constitution – resonates with those who risk their lives to defend that Constitution.”
No branch of the military appears among the “top contributors” to GOP frontrunner John McCain’s campaign.
Additionally, Ron Paul’s military contributions are greater than those of all other current candidates – John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama –combined.
The “Top Contributors” figures can be found at www.opensecrets.org (http://www.opensecrets.org/).
For more information on military contributions to Dr. Paul’s campaign, read this press release (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/press-releases/211/q4-fec-reports-ron-paul-receives-more-military-donations-than-all-other-republicans-combined/).
Read the full article » (http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/RonPaul2008/~3/235069701/top-three-contr.html)

[dollfus46]

Top Three Contributors to Ron Paul are U.S. Army, Navy and Air Force (http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/RonPaul2008/~3/235069701/top-three-contr.html) (2/14/08)

Message of strong national defense and strictly following the Constitution resonates with American servicemen and women
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA – According to opensecrets.org, the top three contributors to Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul’s campaign are from the U.S. Army, U.S. Navy and U.S. Air Force respectively.
“No matter how you measure it, Dr. Paul has the support of our nation’s brave servicemen and women,” said Kent Snyder, Ron Paul 2008 campaign chairman. “His message of a strong national defense, and only going to war with a declaration of war – as mandated by the Constitution – resonates with those who risk their lives to defend that Constitution.”
No branch of the military appears among the “top contributors” to GOP frontrunner John McCain’s campaign.
Additionally, Ron Paul’s military contributions are greater than those of all other current candidates – John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama –combined.
The “Top Contributors” figures can be found at www.opensecrets.org (http://www.opensecrets.org/).
For more information on military contributions to Dr. Paul’s campaign, read this press release (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/press-releases/211/q4-fec-reports-ron-paul-receives-more-military-donations-than-all-other-republicans-combined/).

Read the full article » (http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/RonPaul2008/~3/235069701/top-three-contr.html)


I find it odd that heavily military Virginia voted landslide numbers for McCain in light of Open Secrets find.:smt102

[Conveyor Belt]

Top Three Contributors to Ron Paul are U.S. Army, Navy and Air Force (http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/RonPaul2008/~3/235069701/top-three-contr.html) (2/14/08)

Message of strong national defense and strictly following the Constitution resonates with American servicemen and women
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA – According to opensecrets.org, the top three contributors to Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul’s campaign are from the U.S. Army, U.S. Navy and U.S. Air Force respectively.
“No matter how you measure it, Dr. Paul has the support of our nation’s brave servicemen and women,” said Kent Snyder, Ron Paul 2008 campaign chairman. “His message of a strong national defense, and only going to war with a declaration of war – as mandated by the Constitution – resonates with those who risk their lives to defend that Constitution.”
No branch of the military appears among the “top contributors” to GOP frontrunner John McCain’s campaign.
Additionally, Ron Paul’s military contributions are greater than those of all other current candidates – John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama –combined.
The “Top Contributors” figures can be found at www.opensecrets.org (http://www.opensecrets.org/).
For more information on military contributions to Dr. Paul’s campaign, read this press release (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/press-releases/211/q4-fec-reports-ron-paul-receives-more-military-donations-than-all-other-republicans-combined/).
Read the full article » (http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/RonPaul2008/~3/235069701/top-three-contr.html)

Just because they are the top donors on his campaign list, doesn't mean they support him more than other candidates. Only that other candidates have more generous donors that the military of our country.

Fizzle on, Ron Paul, fizzle on...

[dollfus46]

Just because they are the top donors on his campaign list, doesn't mean they support him more than other candidates. Only that other candidates have more generous donors that the military of our country.

Fizzle on, Ron Paul, fizzle on...
Oh Lordy. My mind is finally fading out on me. That went over my head. I'm so befuddled now I can't even think.:-D Well, CB, that's an interesting bit of information. Thanks.:clap::smt105