RON PAUL RON PAUL... call me crazy NOW.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/22/magaz ... aul-t.html
First off, the phenomenon has brought this man to the front page of a major news outlet. High demand has gotten this candidate exposure he would have never gotten 10 years ago or more.

Tell me again, naysayers, that his ideas are ridiculous, that he's not qualified, and that hes a fringe candidate. He may be lagging in archaic type pollster stats, but there is a certain valid, conspiracy free reason for this. Be prepared to be amazed...

No, I'm not saying he's going to win the primary, but what I am saying is that he scaring the HELL out of the elitist meat puppets that occupy the top teir.

The above article is most definately a HIT PIECE, designed to dismiss him as a crazy person, which by the way, is so completely unethical when it comes to actual journalism, which I've bitched about many o'times before on this board.

If he's such a fringe candidate, tell me why he wins the debates and why fox dismisses his popularity as spam ON THEIR OWN POLL.

Scary place we live in these days...

 

Our Founding Fathers would be called tin foil hat nuts in todays media. Dems need to realize that their canidates are going to continue Bush's agenda on a slightly smaller scale. Conservatives how can you vote for anyone but Paul, Mr. 911 Giuliani makes me sick.

 

I'm a Conservative.. but YOU would probably call me a Neo-Con.

There is no place in the modern world Presidency for "Taft" Conservatives who choose pure idealism over 'grit your teeth and do the best' pragmatism.

I'd rather Hillary were elected... but I bet there's many on Kos would be tickled to death if Paul went against Rudy, Hillary.

Keep him in the Congress, fine with me... but NOT in strategic executive positions.

 

Yeah, because GWB had all that strategic executive experience that helped us into this mess.

There is no such thing as the "modern day presidency". That position has a few outlined responsibilites, how about we get back to those and let the local governement handle all else like its supposed to.

There is however the 'modern day VICE presidency', and if you ask me, that needs some TAFT conservatism on steriods injected into it.

I'm assuming by involking TAFT you mean the shrinking of government, balancing of budgets, and pulling back all foriegn involvement not serving the affluence of the american people, this includes aid and jobs.

So where is the harm in saving some of our own money... or jobs, or not giving expensive warring materials to the fastest growing economy in history?

How about not giving China the ability to buy back bonds and securities and flood our market with US dollars?

Ron Paul can't be in this position why? Because he's been on the house finance committee and confronts the fed on a regular basis... in THIS world, our you might say, "modern world " is a globalist minded one, althought many countries dont wish it this way. When you deal with American money you are dealing with the real world.

It doesnt take a genius to be president.... just take a look.

I want someone with a SOLID reputation, no matter what it is, who is preaching a philosiphy that is in line with the medium term success of the American people.

Ron Paul is the only one whose not a crazy, megalomanica / globalist.

 

Ron Paul would have a serious chance in the primary if the voters were all 18-27, but unfortunately my age group is notorious for its apathy towards voting. If its an idealist you want I suggest backing Barack Obama. He's the only candidate in either party who has a fresh, non D.C. dulled view on politics. I know it sounds like I'm working for his campaign, but I'm not. I'm just a voter that doesn't want to see the politics of the last 19 years continued in the White House.

 

"Guys like Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich are always liked by a lost of young people because the speak moree clearly and more directly to the issue. They can do this because they know they are never, never, EVER going to be in a position to do any of the things they say they will do if they are elected. "

UGH... why vote?

Is there a chance that they are actually answering the questions brought upon them? Aren't they speaking clearly because they really want to transmit a clear message? Should I be turned off by clarity? Should I just pick the next similar sounding convoluted politiking talking head?

Terry, these politics go back WAY further than 19 years. Try nearly 50. We dont know any better than to pick the best of the worst. Those are our only choices, but they all come from the same flock. Barak Obama does nothing for me but make me worry, can he cover up all of his misquotes and mistakes by talking his way out of them? He's a grand speaker, and a smart man, but I'm not down with invading Pakistan without their permission, and I'm afraid of the new brand of super social democrats, his inexperience in his political career as well as in executive office frighten me. I never trust lawyers...

Hatter, I appreciate your closing paragraph, but I think its not that we dont care about ourselves, but its the fact that all those candidates are the same, taking the same money from the same sources, varying their ideas just barely to make them sound different from the next guy but we can see it and we dont bother...

Since I've submitted this post, the nearly pointless IOWA straw poll was held and the results have shown that Ron Paul's nearly non existence "boots to ground" support, somehow turned out 9%, after only buying 100 tickets and campaigning for a week, and having Romney bus in and pay for some outrageous number of votes. Mike Huckabe won, basically, he spent nearly no money.

But this proves that people will turn out for Ron. I believe his support continues to grow.

Ron has the most money NOT BORROWED in his campaign, cash i mean, and has raised the most money from Military, or former military, and military families... thats saying a bit more than you guys let on by reminding us that he's a 2nd teir candidate.

I'm not saying he's gonna win, I'm saying he's making more waves then he's getting credit for and he's still the only anti war candidate on the GOP side.

Come september, next month, that warring report from Petraius (sp?) that will be written by a Rove-less White house, YES THE WHITE HOUSE will write it. People will be horrified by the fact that we are not only not leaving, but we are declaring middle eastern sand and every dark skinned indigenous person walking on it whose not a billionaire and enemy terrorist group.... and will be invading it shortly.

My point is all about fiscal responsibility to the citizens of THIS country. RP has the only idea that will work before I'm 70. This might be the most money we've ever spent on a war, relative to inflation, especially on a war fighting a enemy with no navy, home country, air force, nuclear weapons... no to mention the lack of an end in sight.