I like him because he's absolutely insane. We need more crazy people. I don't mean disturbed crazy or disturbed insane, those ones need deathism, I mean just wacko's who can come up with alternate un-though of solutions. Like employing ants for road construction.
HaHaHa, no chance of that mate. Most of these plonkers are too busy thinking about the next episode of 24 or worrying about how Britney is or looking at what is happening to Paris Hilton to give a sh*t whilst these corrupt fools in power ruin the world.
Drudge has already taken down his poll....but if I remember correctly, Romney won with Rudy in 2nd...Ron Paul was 3rd, and McCain was 4th....that says alot about McCain...
Good ol' "Insane McCain." He looks out of his depth these days, a man that has lost the will. Even Americas fake mayor Giuliani came over better than him.
I think you will find alot of republicans actually hate McCain...after all, he is about as liberal as they come...
He's good on Science, thus earns my respect, plus the fact he's also a believer in evolution and wishes to cut spending. Now then, as AGS asked, I have never once in my life consumed any narcotic of any kind, be it alcohol, illegal substances, or anything inhaled. I have never smoked a cigarette, I have never taken a sip of any drink, and I have never partaken in any disgusting human habits of indulgence in regards to mind altering substances. I am who I am.
This video gets rid of the filler http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7yJgqnQ5Rc&eurl= They now want to brand him as crazy. Does he seem crazy here? Really? Or just dangerous to the establishment?
We don't. We're Republicans, we welcome healthy competition. We don't do the crazy "one party state" thing that the socialists do. You need to catch up on your recent history. Ron Paul has already run for President as a Libertarian. He's not going to make that mistake again. This year, it's Bob Barr's task to carry that torch.
The LP would be better off to throw all of their money into the Paul campaign right now and forget about spending a penny on a sacrificial lamb in the general election. Dr. Paul is doing more to get the libertarian message across by staying in the race and the debates than the LP could with 20 national campaigns. There are already plenty of people who know about Ron Paul than ever knew about Michael Badnarik.
Really? And what does that mean "you heard". Who exactly flooded and how in the fvck would anyone know it was a "flood". Exactly what is a flood compared to a vote on a (or several) polls? If Giuliani would of been the winner according to the polls would you have "heard" that his supporters where "flooding" the polls? And does flooding mean something like anti-democracy? So if XXX candidate got the support Ron Paul did would you consider it a flooding? Who would not be considered a flooding and why? (and don't say because they are the "big three" this it fvcking propaganda spunk)
Yes, really...take your lithium pills. 1250 in no time at all: http://digg.com/political_opinion/G...eaks_Truth_About_Iraq_And_Conservative_Values http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1828269/posts
Ron Paul is definately not crazy the problem is its been a looooooong time since anyone has seen a politician who wants a smaller government, less taxes, and for the U.S. to stop "policing" the world and better yet his voting record can back up EVERYTHING he says. From Iraq, taxes, education, immigration, free market, oil refineries etc. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul and http://youtube.com/results?search_query=ron+paul&search=Search
So would I, he is quite literally Americas last hope. But they'll get Hillary and the corruption will continue. Oh well, at least it will give us all summats to chat about in P&R forum, I might even get GT and d16man in with me on the "Clinton bashing."
There's really no such thing as an anti-socialist Republican. Republicans are usually war-hawk socialists. They support big government, high taxes, and state-sanctioned "morals". That seems like socialism to me. Ron Paul is the lesser evil. I would support him, but I want to see the US go into financial meltdown with a couple more wars. There'll be some nice, cheap property left when the currency borks.
Paul seems to be the only one in the pack who supports restoring Replublican form on government. Did Bush do anything to maintain separation of powers? ("I am the decider" and giving judicial power to executive branch type of thing) I don't know why they even run as Republicans. Maybe because sheeple would stop voting for them if they ran as socialists
OK so now it is DIGG that skews the results of any poll? When people talk about a candidate after a debate this means they are "flooding" the MSNBC poll? If I link to a forum that is talking about how good mitt romney did, and asking for support for him, then that means his supporters are "flooding" the polls.....simply ludicrous. See the fact is that you are to ignorant to acknowledge is that people like Ron Paul. They like what he stands for and what he says. They just don't have much of a chance to hear him because he is the least funded candidate. The people that only want to vote for "the big three" are still gonna only acknowledge them and thus vote for them. \ The fact of what the polls show is that the people that are not completely manipulated by the propaganda media let their vote be known. This will change, I know this, when all you here about is Mitt/Rudi/McCain for the next few months and then you can become once again comfortable that your "big three" will be the only one on the minds of the brain dead. But right now there are a lot of people buzzing about Paul before the propaganda can take effect.
the simple fact of the matter is: 1-paul is unelectable, no one knows who he is. he comes across as a kook. 2-he's a truther. that axes him immediately 3-the only people who support his candidacy are people who don't want the GOP to have a chance in 2008.