Ron Paul raises $3,800,000 so far! WOW!

Amen to that! Well spoken.

 

Our founders had no intentions of destroying our country, nor tearing it down. I'm aware of no freedom I've lost, in the least bit, at all. If I were an associate of al qaida, I might be a little concerned, but then they are not entitled to our "freedoms."

 

Nor do Ron Paul supporters. Our Founding Fathers put up with a lot of crap for many, many years, as the government grew in girth and became more oppressive and less apt at addressing the common citizen's needs. I'm sure most of us remember what the Declaration of Independence was truly about, right? It was the leaders of the freedom movement in our nation describing every problem caused by the King and his minions, and why they must step up and overthrow the government. It would have been done peacefully, if the British had not been so stubborn and resistant to change.

This is precisely what Ron Paul supporters are doing, and arguably, they are doing it with more civility and respect for our current system than the men we honor so often like Adams and Jefferson. We aren't tar and feathering government officials, we aren't chasing tax collectors out of town, we aren't collecting munitions in our basements for an upcoming war (ok I'm sure some crazies are doing that, but I digress).

We are simply using our voice, our dollars, and our votes to make it well known that we are sick of the actions of our government and the way this country is being run, and we simply will not tolerate it any longer. And you know what? Deny it all you want, but the revolution is growing. More and more people are stepping aboard the Ron Paul train. This is a true grassroots effort; every other candidate is trying to emulate our successes, and failing miserably.

Romney organized a huge fund-raiser for the first day of his campaign, and with both online donations and real life donations, plus the full support and supplementary funding of his campaign, he raised $6.2M, the leading day of any GOP primary candidate, ever. The November 5th money bomb was a grassroots effort, with no support or advertising done by the campaign, and with online donations alone, raised $4,000,000+. To the best of my knowledge, Ron Paul acknowledged the event once or twice on video before hand, and the campaign sent no correspondence concerning the effort until halfway through the day. This also does not factor in additional funds once they count off-line donations meant for the event. That, coupled with the insane amount of donors and low average donation rate, is true power.

When you can raise <$4M in one day, you are a viable candidate, and you can afford to stick it out until the end. Never mind the possibility of an endorsement from the Libertarian Party and the Constitution Party, adding more funding to our campaign. As much as I'd like to believe Ron when he says he'd stop if not nominated by the GOP, I don't buy it. I think with the support he has, and the funding he has, Ron would certainly have to consider a third party run.

You can call us RINOs and say we are liberals in disguise and whatever else, but the bottom line is that a candidate who can bridge the gap between parties and unite people from both ends of the political spectrum is the kind of guy who wins the general election. I pointed this out in the past; you guys scoff at Democrats switching to Republican to nominate Ron Paul, but after the GOP elects a candidate, guess who that candidate has to get to jump to his side? Democrats! I can't fathom the ability to lambast Ron Paul for pulling support from all political parties, yet once the primaries are over, the same people would praise a candidate who could do that exact same thing.

I offer again, to the Republican base of this forum, an ultimatum. Ron Paul is not going away. The Republican base is split, it's tattered by the remnants of 8 years of Bush. The voter base is declining, and Vegas odds are practically putting Hillary in the Oval Office already. Who among the GOP candidates aside from Ron Paul can convince people to vote for a Republican again? Who among the Republicans can win a general election when 70% of Americans want to get the hell out of Iraq ASAP? He's got the funding and the support, and he's not going to go away. You can pull a Ralph Nader and lose half your base to an independent and hand Hillary the keys to the White House on a silver platter, or you can wake up, swallow your pride, and vote for someone who is at least a lot closer to your ideals than fucking Hillary.

He's going to be a factor in this election, whether the GOP unites behind him or not.

 

fletch, you make some good points. I admire your enthusiasm. I see RP in a different light. Just today, on Fox (yes, RP loves Fox and Fox has given him some excellent coverage), it didn't take him but a minute or so into the interview to start blaming America first. The subject? The issue taking place in Pakistan. RP's first instinct was to blame America for what they are going through. This is quite indicative of what I was pointing out.

There seems to be this "mythical" RP that his supporters make out to be, not unlike "Superman," then there is what RP actually says on issues (more like Cliff Claven). My experience has been, from actually observing, that the two rarely ever mesh.

I'm not interested in our country going back to the 1700's. I also don't believe there is a comparison between the Revolutionary War (of which my Great [7] Grandfather fought in) and today. It's more than a bit disingenuous, IMO.

I don't see him being a contender. I realize some are going out of their way to puff up his actual support. I don't contend RP had anything to do with "november 5th" so that's not really an issue. My point has been, that this has been planned for a long time. It took a lot of planning and coordination to beat a previous record that "just happened."

When real polls, those that cannot be spammed, circumvented, etc. start showing real numbers higher than the 2-5% I've been seeing, regardless of the assumed excuses, then there will be something of substance.

My observations of RP is that he doesn't really stand for anything, that other candidates (both republican and democrat) stand for. He simply stands against virtually everything. Dismantling the government, tearing the country down, isolating the US from the rest of the world, eliminating allies, and ultimately taking the US into a fetal position of curling up into a ball and waiting for the world to attack us, because we deserve it.

The primary responsibility of the POTUS is to protect America. National security. That's "my" primary concern. I've seen nothing (other than empty claims by supporters) that RP would do anything to protect the US. He seems too consumed trying to find ways to blame America for the world's problems. I can see why that mentality appeals to liberals. It's a self-loathing trait that seems inherently part of a gene pool gone awry.

None-the-less, you've more than convinced me over your months here, that you only want the best for America. We differ on issues, though we most likely want the same thing in some ways. If RP ever changes his position(s) on national security, let me know. I'm just not a huge fan of isolationism and blaming our country for every problem in the world. I don't believe someone like that could lead our country, to a positive result, in these troubling times. We would be led, but it would be backwards.

 

Ron Paul is the only person I want for Prez.

 

GTech, I appreciate the honesty, and that is probably one of my favorite posts I've ever seen you make. At the end of the day, we are just two people who truly want the best for America in the future, even if we see that goal being met from completely different approaches. I know you mean well for America also, and I really appreciate your enthusiasm, it really shows that patriotism runs deep within your veins. That's definitely cool that you are the descendant of a true American patriot.

I'm heading out for a bit to hang out with some friends, I've got a few things from your big post to rebuke, but overall, great post.

 

@Gtech, I think you need to re-read the first two paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence.

Ron Paul didn't choose the meme, the grassroots did. It was not an official campaign fund raiser. Tucker Carlson was speechless today when Dr. Paul told him during an interview that he didn't even know the name of the person who organized it. It's truly a de-centralized, for the people campaign.

 

Done:

http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/declaration_transcript.html

What's next?

 

Actually, no it didn't. I know the guy who started it, I was there throughout the process of picking a meme, promoting it, even the arguments over the site design and possible blowback from using the V for Vendetta theme. It's all documented on the ronpaulforums, and was independently done by Trevor. Total planning time, about one month.

The grassroots have been conducting money bombs for months now, totally organized, again, independent of the campaign. The next bomb is 11/11, Veterans Day. http://thisnovember11th.com

That one is not being run by Trevor. There is also a Dec 16th, Boston Tea Party money bomb but Trevor is trying to create a weekend of it with activism bombs on the 15th and donation bombs on the 16th. The original Tea Party planner has been slow to get the site up and promoted.

The Fox text polls cannot be spammed, Fox has admitted it. As has MSNBC. Paul simply dominates the internet. And his showings in 20 of 40 Straw Poll wins across America should be another indicator. But if you're really concerned about spam, consider that Paul brought in 35,000+ individual donors yesterday, and Mike Huckabee had 2,000 from the beginning of his campaign thru to the end of Q3.

Regardless, I look forward to seeing the results in the primaries. He'll never fare well with the phone polls, they only call GOPers from the last one or two cycles, not new GOP members, of which he is the biggest driver of new members to the party.

He stands for the Constitution. You're right he doesn't stand for what the other candidates stand for, he stands for honesty. Real Americans volunteering for his campaign, real Americans donating. Not PACs, not corporations and not the wealthy elite class.

You do realize that Reagan ran on a very similar, if not nearly identical platform that Paul did. And I'm sure you know, that Barry Goldwater, ran on a very similar platform, so much so, that the Goldwater Conservatives in California endorsed Paul months ago. And I'm sure you know, that Ron Paul is running on the same foreign policy that Bush did in 2000.

This is honest, and I can respect it. But you're putting words in Paul's mouth when you say he blames America. And he's not an isolationist, unless you think that George Washington and Ronald Reagan were isolationists.

The problem today, and it's prevalent in the "new" republican base, is that there is a blind devotion to the President and that was never the intention of the Founders. When Congress, the Senate and the Executive branch fail to meet their Constitutional obligations, the Founders expected us to change the government. In fact, the system of checks and balances was deliberately conceived to prevent a single person from dictating the direction of the country to the people, or to remove civil liberties.

Paul stands for an America where you don't have to spy on your neighbor to feel safe. Where it's understood that rendition and torture are not American, nor are they the actions of a free and moral society. Where the rule of law protects the rights of the people, not of the government. And that the tax payer's dollars should not be used to subsidize the world, or to participate in drafting new laws at the global (UN) level without representation by those taxpayers.

 

How about a hug?

 

One month is a long time, when you have an active membership getting the word out, especially given the types of members these are.

I wasn't talking about text polls.

Maybe it's because the constituency he is attracting were previously democrat/liberals? I don't believe it's the GOP that he's gaining momentum with. The real polls would indicate this as well. I don't discount he has some GOP member support. Let's look at this logically. In this forum, those that have traditionally been very liberal are now joining the republican party to vote for a libertarian. That's a fair observation, I believe.

This would indicate why RP was not popular in real polls. When pollsters call their base, they call Republicans to see who they are voting for, not previous democrats with a liberal slant. Fair?

Popular rhetoric, but I believe every candidate, republican and democrat, stand for the Constitution. We all do. RP doesn't have a monopoly there. Real Americans volunteer for every campaign. There is nothing unusual about that. I have no idea what PACs or corporations he's involved with. I saw some interesting voting he had done last week, involving an oil company in Houston. Can't remember if I bookmarked it or not.

No, I do not realize or believe the assertions are true. Reagan was not an isolationist. He was not weak on foreign policy either. If RP was running on the same foreign policy as Bush, I suspect you wouldn't be supporting him. While some may discount 9/11, I will not. Things changed. National security is a huge issue. RP seems to have no policy, other than to blame America, when it comes to national security.

He's very much an isolationist and he's gone out of his way to make that a clear and consistent message. I'm not putting words into his mouth. I'm listening to the words that come out of his mouth. It's virtually impossible to watch a clip of RP without him blaming America for something. That's exactly what he did today. I don't want a President like that. We need leadership, not self-loathing on behalf of our country.

This is an opinion. I do not agree with it. In fact, we have the opportunity to elect a new government and President every four years, as part of those checks and balances. The people of our country spoke, and cast their votes. That *some* are disenchanted is part of that process. There is no pleasing everyone. Ever.

I do find it ironic that we are discussing this issue, and the issue of ron paul, in the context of "blind devotion." Had to chuckle a bit on that one

I've heard all the "ron paul stands for {insert something popular, whether there's a basis for it or not here"

I've heard all the baseless accusations about torture, how not going after terrorists is a good thing, how if the government is going to fight terrorists, they must do it with their hands tied behind their back with no tools and no support. This is exactly what I DO NOT WANT. Our country faces an enemy. An enemy who has no concern over what is fair or what is not, is not influenced by morals or values and at the very least.

We live in as moral and free society as there is. Our rules of law do protect people and we probably have the best system in the world. Nothing is ever perfect, but we are pretty close. We elect representatives. I share your discontent with the UN. The UN is controlled by an arab presence and their only purpose is to issue blanket condemnations of Israel. Other than that, the UN consumes air, money and creates corruption; as we saw with the oil for food scandal and oil voucher scandals, that exposed why so many of our traditional allies were bought out by saddam.

 

One of the problems with calling the Republican base by calling voters of the last three primaries is the last election in particular. There was a record low turnout of something like 7% of general election voters for the GOP? The primary was hugely in favor of George Bush, so the only voters in that primary were a small minority trying to elect a different Republican candidate, and the most dedicated Bush supporters who showed up to vote in a primary that was pretty much already decided. So obviously, most of these people could be classified as the strongest Bush supporters, and it's surprising they don't support Ron Paul, whose foreign policy alone is completely counter to Bush, without even taking into account the dozens of other issues.

The problem I think is that a large number of people who make up the Republican base are not being represented by these polls, simply because they didn't feel a need to show up for the last primary. There is no doubt a lot of support from liberals, libertarians, and other political parties, but let us not forget that the situation of the 2004 primary election and its bearing on the way pollsters find their sample population. Quite simply, many people who are Republican but not as politically active, or many who are Republican but don't particularly like Bush, although they would vote for Bush over a Democrat, are not being represented in these polls.

Again, I'm no statistics major, but I'd like to see someone explain to me how a sample of voters that is so much smaller than the Republican base, and a sample of voters who showed up to vote in an election that was essentially decided, can say that said sample is sufficiently scientifically random, and is not skewed in favor of a Bush-policy Republican.

 

You mean an active and massive netroots. Got it.

Which polls specifically?

Reagan attracted Democrats. You're old enough to know the term, Reagan Democrat. Also Libertarians made up a large wing of the Republican party at that time. Goldwater => Reagan. Goldwater was as Libertarian as they come. A total minarchist. You have to remember that the NeoConservatives came from the left, and those are the people running the party today. This is truly one of the only eras of big spending Republicans, endorsing programs like "No Child Left Behind". GOPers were always for small government, and against the welfare state.

It's not that simple. You voted for Clinton. Are you a liberal? You support Bush now, are you a Republican? People change affiliation, that is why so many states have open primaries where independents can pick the right party and candidate to endorse per election, instead of having to be locked into one particular slate or doctrine. That's how a Republic is supposed to work.

Paul may not have a monopoly, but it is a position of tremendous strength for his record. If every candidate stood for the Constitution, why would Mitt Romney want to use a line item veto? Why would Rudy Giuliani support the Patriot Act, which violates the 4th Amendment?

Sure real volunteers participate in each campaign. But not at the level that Paul's do. You should research the PACs and corporations. You won't find much. What you will find is that he is a leader in small donors, that his fund raising base is diverse and large. You'll also find that he turns out larger rallies than the other GOPers.

Ron Paul is also not an isolationist. He's a free trader and a diplomat.

Bush's foreign policy in 2000 was "no nation building, a humble foreign policy" in direct contrast to the Clinton years. That is the same platform Paul is running on. It's a traditional Republican platform.

You really need to look up some of Reagan's speeches. There is that famous one, whose name eludes me, but if you search this forum, I have posted it before. It's long, but the rhetoric is almost a mirror image of Paul's. In fact, I can see you thinking to yourself, Reagan hated America!

Remember, Paul was one of only 4 Congressmen to endorse Reagan for President. They were very good friends.

If you believe that militarism is the only foreign policy of America, then I can see where Ron Paul confuses you. However, trade, travel and diplomacy, are more effective and exactly what he promotes. It's how we beat Russia, it's how we co-exist with China. These are much mightier nations than someone who has a blueprint for a nuke that will take them 5 years to build.

What this country needs, is a responsible statesman, someone who can muster bi-partisan support, who won't cater to special interests, who will respect the rule of law and the Constitution and someone with the economic background to deal with the crisis that is creeping up on us. Believe me, you'll remember these words if things go sideways, and we have already passed a lot of tipping points in the economy.

But in those 4 years, the elected officials have a blank check to do as they please? That's not how the Founders intended the system. Do some research on Madison, Jefferson and Washington. Read their letters and speeches. They were as anti-authoritarianism as possible. They were all about restraining the state, and never letting the people compromise their liberties for security.

Indeed, but when we sacrifice our principles, we lose our identity. If you haven't seen or read about the tortures, I suggest you do some research. The rendition program is infamous worldwide. Allies like France and Germany have charged Rumsfeld with war crimes, Italy is prosecuting CIA agents for rendition. There is a lot going on that is not reported in the domestic media.

Are the crimes of these neocons yours or mine? I don't accept that the failures of our leaders are failures of the people or the Republic. And that is why I intensely dislike the disingenuous rhetoric that we all hate America for criticizing failure in government. You've criticized Clinton, does that mean you hated America in the 1990's?

The system is good, it's just been diluted and corrupted. The core American laws and principles are the highest standard for freedom and liberty in the history of mankind. You're right it is not perfect, nor is it static. The system has begun to drift, and as Patriots, we all have a right, and an obligation to bring it back into balance.

The UN has some biases you do not like, but mine are less about our foreign allies and more about our Republic. The Founders did not believe in taxation without representation. We cannot elect, or influence the determinations and law making of the UN, and yet we are now in a position where UN law, supersedes American law, with much of the funding for that organization coming from the pockets of the working American Tax Payer.

If we weren't on attack with one another all of the time, I am sure we would find a lot of things we agree upon, particularly positive things about America.

I can handle that you do not agree with RP's positions, but I don't like when they are misrepresented. Yes, he wants to bring ALL of the troops home. Yes, he wants to abolish f**ked up government departments that are inefficient and corrupt. Yes, he wants to return us to sound money, before the dollar collapses. Yes, he doesn't believe in a welfare state. I can dig people disagreeing, as long as we are dealing with his real positions, and the validity of such, and not fabrications and veiled insults about being weak, isolationist, or hating America. That is all counter-productive rhetoric.

 

GTech on the topic of isolationism..

first i want to point out that Ron Paul has the most international support than any other candidate. that can be proven by meetup.com (which also shows he has the best grassroots campaign than anyone by far)

also, i'm not sure if you are suggesting republicans should be pro-war.. a look at history shows that republicans ran on an anti-war platform to get elected, which is what we'll have to do to beat hillary. what are the figures.. 70-80 % want us out of Iraq.. yea those are polls but you often get the same response when you ask ppl yourself.

we should be using war as a last resort, not threats to other nations that don't abide by our rules. since when did we become the head honcho on earth that sets all the rules for other nations to live by.. and people say 'well if other countries did that to us we'd be pissed too', well that is already happening, the UN! as soon as rumors come over that they'll take away our 2nd amendment right, us conservatives come out swinging saying "over my dead body!"

if you think the U.N. is corrupt and that we are not you are a hypocrite because we are their biggest funder. (am i right?) you always say about ron "blaming america first" well sometimes yes! do you think that everything the government does is right and just?! i thought the stance of the conservative was for low government to not be involved with ppl's business because we all know that big government leads to corruption.. and so does a big foreign policy that funds our "allies" one minute against our then "enemies" and 30 years later we're fighting the people we've funded. it's also not about 'blaming America', if there is a problem that needs to be fixed it should be located and fixed for the interest of our country, not to further a bad situation. we are here to IMPROVE not PROVE ourselves.

and most of all, how can you support our foreign policy or anything like it when we're giving out billions of dollars to other nations while we are bankrupting ourselves to China and leaving our borders wiiiiiide open for the terrorists to walk right up and fly a few more planes into our buildings. if you wanna get tough on terrorism, hell i'm all for that, but let's get tough on it - and knock the sons of b*tches in their teeth when they hit us, and go over to Afghanistan or Pakistan or Kuzahkstan or whatever stan Osama is in and root him out.. he's the cause of all of this so let's go after the cause.

We can't be picking sides to fund a war on because usually in the end when it's all over, the side we funded feels used and the one they fought will naturally hate us - THAT's how you become an isolationist nation.

 

I see it more as a "nutroots."

Online polls. Thought that was pretty clear.

Clinton attracted republicans. Varying people always attract the other side. To what degree though? NeoConservatives are about as left as RP is strong on national security. Granted, at one time, it may have been a term "associated" with leftists. So are terms like "communism, anarchists, liberals, etc."

Most of the "big spending" comes from national security. Clinton all but gutted out military in the 90s. We've also increased spending in security as well. And, Bush has just flat out been poor on spending. I can recognize that. It's a point of contention I have with him, as well as other issues. Kind of getting off the original topic though.

At that time, I had no inclination of what a liberal, conservative, republican or democrat was. I suspect that isn't uncommon, but I really didn't get into politics until after 9/11. Even then, it took me a while to identify with the various labels.

Why would Reagan, why would Clinton? Why would so many other great Presidents want to use a line item veto? To trim out pork, to trim out legislation totally unrelated to a bill? Right now, a President has two choices. Sign it as is (the recent bill on child healthcare comes to mind) or reject it.

The notion that the Patriot Act violates the 4th Amendment is a canard. The SC has time and again, ruled on the Patriot Act. In fact, this is part of what I was saying when it comes to tying America's hands behind it's back to do what it needs to protect out nation.

But I might find some? That would negate the whole argument.

I beg to differ. He is an isolationist.

I wouldn't package it like that, but I can understand why you might. There was this little thing called 9/11 that changed things. We didn't ask for it (though RP would not only have us believe we did, but that we deserved it and it was "our" fault). RP is running on an isolationist platform. Seeking to distance our country from allies, such as Israel (I won't even go into all the anti-semitic support he has, or some of the comments he's made over the years, that would only strengthen this).

I was serving my country during Reagan's presidency. I knew nothing of politics then and don't recall his speeches. I've seen a photo signed by Reagan to RP. I'm sure those are fairly common. I have a friend who has a photo signed from Bush. I don't believe that qualifies someone as being "friends."

I believe what Reagan says...says it all:

Reagan was right then, and today, things are different, just as they were back then. It's a different world, a different enemy that uses different tactics. I've not seen anything of the sort from Ron Paul. There simply is no comparison. RP's position, as I see it, is to lock down America (isolationism), curl up into a ball, and wait to be attacked because we deserve it. That's the impression I'm left with.

The economy is cyclic. It goes up, it goes down, it stalls, it booms, it repeats itself. Our country does need such leadership. We can both agree on that. I don't believe RP is that person.

Liberties are not being compromised for security. We've covered this time and again. It's another canard. What I believe is that some people use this canard as a mask, to cover up the notion that inaction is the best course of action, always. We are not, nor do we have to compromise liberties for security. I also submit that we should not treat security lightly or pretend it isn't needed. It is the responsibility of the POTUS and any candidate who doesn't take that responsibility seriously, doesn't deserve to be elected.

We've not sacrificed principles. We are better than, and always will be, better than our enemies. I don't need to research about torture. Other than a handful of people behind bars for doing such at abu gharib, I've seen no indication of such. Better men and women than your or I will ever be do work neither of us probably want to know about, to protect our country.

What crimes? Another canard? I don't blame our leaders for conspiracy theories and trumped up allegations that come from third rate web sites and people filled with self-loathing and hatred.

I've criticized Clinton and Bush. There is a difference between criticizing someone honestly, with source information, than making up and taking on popular and fashionable (delusional at times) myths. The same thing goes with criticizing of our country. Ceaseless criticism, whether it's honest or simply fabricated, is a sign of hatred. Who among us wants or deserves ceaseless criticism?

We've faced an extraordinary enemy, thwarted over 20 terrorist plots since 9/11 and no one is losing their liberties. This would be a success, not a failure. At least to most, I would think.

I won't argue on the corrupt UN. Regardless of our views here, we both want the same thing. The UN is a corrupt, useless organization and the sooner we are out of it and kick their ass off to another country, the better.

That would be nice. I have noticed the change over the past month.

I can understand your position here. I don't like it when Bush or Cheney is misrepresented, slandered, smeared, but I also realize it's popular and fashionable. Se we have something in common and believe me, no one knows more about how you feel on this issue, than I do.

I don't believe RP hates America though. I do believe he is indicative of isolationist views and his weak foreign policy speaks for itself. I especially don't like his "blame America first" position on just about everything. It's almost impossible to see him in a debate or on TV, when he isn't bashing America in that high pitched whiny voice and blaming us for the world's problems. That's not leadership.

 

You forget that you are talking to a Neo-Clown. I mean Neo-Con.

 

@GTech - Thanks for the reply.

Something I have noticed in the last few months here, is that for a lot of people, they didn't start paying attention to politics or history until 9/11. Unfortunately, history repeats itself. There have been other times in history when Americans and others have been very concerned about an external threat.

But this is the first time that America has not declared war and conducted a complete invasion of a country, coincidentally at a time of great economic uncertainty.

I like the advice of the Founders, that America will never be destroyed by an external threat, only by a domestic one, under the guise of a war. It's so very important to be vigilant against enemies foreign and domestic.

Paul's defensive policy is almost identical to Reagan's. And while you may think it is antiquated, like some politician's believe that the Constitution is anachronistic, it's a policy that has served this nation well for hundreds of years.

And re: Reagan, the speech was, "A time for choosing", you can find it on Google Video. Very inspiring stuff.

 

Ron Paul is not blaming Americans like you and me Gtech, he is blaming the American governments foreign policy.

You're kidding right? By that post, you've demonstrated before everyone in this forum that you don't read very much history. The Revolutionary War is DIRECTLY related to everything that is happening today. There are plenty of comparisons to be made.

Do you remember why that war was fought? It was fought so that Americans could be free from Britain. Without that war, you have no Bill of Rights, no Constitution, and no Freedom. God forbid where we would be at today if the Revolutionary war was lost by the 13 colonies.

Everything that those colonists soldiers fought and died for is being dismantled today. Yes, we do live under a repressive government, a lot of you guys just haven't figured it out yet.

I can't believe you can't see the comparisons between the 1700s and today, anyone who reads history understands the comparisons and connections.

 

Gtech, I don't know if you've figured this out yet, but if Giuliani or any of the other candidates besides Paul gets the nomination, you do realize that Hillary WILL win right?

You do realized that like 70% of Americans want out of Iraq, and if Giuliani or Romney wins the nomination, and goes up against Hillary, she will destroy them with her (fake) antiwar message. I say "fake" because those of us in the know realize that Hillary voted for the Iraq war, and is a liar, and will attack Iran the first chance she gets.

Anyway, the war is not popular. Anyone with a brain cell in their skull knows that you won't win an election when 70% of the people are against your policies. So really, you don't have much of a choice Gtech. You can either vote for Ron Paul, who has a genuine anti war message and who offers true liberty, or you can vote for one of the "other" candidates, who will get beat into the floor by Hillary when they try to debate her on Iraq.

It really is a no brainer..........

 

Incorrect. He is blaming America. You and I and everyone else is a part of America and when he goes on world wide TV and blames America for the rest of the world's problems, he is blaming "me." America runs through my blood. I'm not like others, who place a four year shelf life on patriotism.

No, I'm not kidding. I know history well and I know when someone attempts to rewrite it.

I remember the history well. It has significant value for me because my Great [7] Grandfather fought in that war, as did his brothers. We are not enslaved to any other country and there is no King. Attempts to diminish the sacrifice of our forefathers who gave their hearts, souls and lives for "our" freedom by comparing it to an election and a candidate who seemingly wouldn't lift a finger to fight for this country is an insult to anyone's common sense and intelligence.

Good Lord, can we dismiss the alex jones hysteria? You have no idea what a repressive government is. You've had it easy, while others before you (and I) have given their lives for this country. Not everyone gets their doom and gloom news from tinfoil sites.

I can't believe you would attempt to diminish our country's history by making such outrageous claims.

No. This is speculation. RP is polling 2% nationally, 5% if we give him credit for the most liberal of polling. I'm not even convinced Hillary will get the party nomination. Hell, Ralph Nader has had more national support than RP.

No, I do not realize a mythical 70% number that is casually tagged on to everything RP supporters disagree with. I am fully aware though, that most Americans do not support defeat.

I don't get my news from alex jones, so I guess I'm not in the "know." Personally, I see that as a positive, not a negative

We're not talking about popularity contests on assumed numbers. I have every choice that any America has. I can vote for who I want, and I will. I will not vote for someone who is an isolationist, who panders to kooky conspiracy nuts, seeks to dismantle our country and take us back 300 years, tie our government's hands behind it's back to go after threats, toss aside allies like day old burritos that we've spend decades building, and have America sit around and wait for an attack because we deserve it.

I am not a liberal, I am not a 9/11 troofer, I am not a neonazi, I am not a self-loather, I am not an anti-semite, I do not believe space ships will or have landed at Taco Bell, I am not an anarchist and I do not let alex jones do my thinking. I am...an American, and I'm damn proud of it.