How do you feel about Ron Paul?

[Ncturnal]

It's not looking good for Ron Paul according to today's survey results posted on CNN . I guess most of America would rather stick to the same sort of politicians we're used to. .


DES MOINES, Iowa (CNN) -- Mike Huckabee's dramatic jump in the polls is going nationwide. The former Arkansas governor is in a virtual tie with Republican presidential front-runner Rudy Giuliani in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation national poll out Monday.

Mike Huckabee is now the front-runner in the polls in Iowa.

Giuliani, the former New York City mayor, is backed by 24 percent of Republican voters nationally while Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas, is at 22 percent.

The two-point difference is well within the survey's sampling error of plus or minus 5 percentage points.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is at 16 percent in the new poll, followed by Sen. John McCain of Arizona at 12 percent, Former Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee at 10 percent, Rep. Ron Paul of Texas at 6 percent, Rep. Duncan Hunter of California at 2 percent and Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado at 1 percent.

Apparently you missed this link the first time I posted it. Again I have to ask: Why do you care what the polls say? Slight language warning. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If9EWDB_zK4

P.S. - F**K YOU FRANK

 

[robr]

Apparently you missed this link the first time I posted it. Again I have to ask: Why do you care what the polls say? Slight language warning. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If9EWDB_zK4

P.S. - F**K YOU FRANK

Granted polls can be biased, maybe this one is, but 6% is a pretty low number. I seriously doubt the margin of error is 10-20% higher than the polls are claiming, unless they are intentionally trying to influence the election.

 

[Ncturnal]

Granted polls can be biased, maybe this one is, but 6% is a pretty low number. I seriously doubt the margin of error is 10-20% higher than the polls are claiming, unless they are intentionally trying to influence the election.

There have been many problems exposed with the polls. The problem isn't margin of error. The problem is bias and censorship. Many polls have been exposed already. A lot of them didn't even include Ron Paul at all. It's pretty hard to poll well if they don't include you. You have to understand how much the establishment sees Ron Paul as a threat. You can't logically expect them to post a fair poll for someone who won't be their lapdog. The fund raising says a lot more about the campaign than any poll ever could. The media has been caught intentionally censoring Ron Paul. That alone should make you wonder why.

Fox News caught censoring at the debate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkRSEX3O-Uc

Censoring Ron Paul
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENA0vxLwoq4

Ron excluded in Iowa
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UisBoRZ3y-0

Here is an example of one poll.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPpCvF7N3Vg

Again this begs the question. Why do you care what the polls say?

 

[Ncturnal]

When he was excluded in Iowa the Ron Paul supporters decided to hold their own event next door on the same day and had twice as many show up who apparently didn't see the polls before attending.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vJmgMqIJTQ

 

[heySkippy]

I really worried about this country with people supporting socialists like Clinton, wacko's like Paul, nutjobs like Moore and Gore. Come on people EDUCATE yourself.

Educate your own self. You could start with apostrophes and their uses.

The simple fact is that Ron Paul is the only candidate from either major party that is interested in the Constitution and the intended role of the federal government. The founding fathers were smart, but since the US civil war we have steadily moved away from that intent. I would love to see someone like him jar the status quo hard.

 

[da3dalus]

Yea, say what you want about Ron Paul, but the censorship the media has on him is rediculous. The question people aren't asking and should be is WHY?

 

[jalnjr]

ron paul is this nation's only chance....
4 more of the same, or a new hope.

$usd sheds a penny every 3 weeks
the bipartisan allows the fed reserve to mint
more paper...day of atonement has come.
we need a hard change.
we have a dozen candidates barking the same ol'
then we have dr paul.....

please vote in your primaries, and in the general election.

 

[Ncturnal]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMqN0g-cAOU :biggrin:

 

[scorp965]

Hi

I thought we were discussing Ru Paul as I know who she/he is :biggrin:

Regards

 

[nsxotic911]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

I am by no means a consipracy theorist, and I have no opinion regarding a govt. cospiracy regarding 9.11--but it is not as crazy as you would believe. Read the entire article. You will be shocked. And this is what they have unclassified. I can only imagine what is still classified.

Journalist James Bamford summarized Operation Northwoods in his April 24, 2001 book Body of Secrets:

"Operation Northwoods, which had the written approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro, thus giving Lemnitzer and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international backing, they needed to launch their war."

Al-Qeada has claimed responsibility for 9/11. 'Nuff said. Time, or Popular Mechanics or something proved all the 9/11 conspiracy theories false.

The Northwood Memoraundum... strange....

 

[steveny]

My vote will go to anyone who commits to forcing Honda to build a new NSX.

 

[da3dalus]

Al-Qeada has claimed responsibility for 9/11. 'Nuff said. Time, or Popular Mechanics or something proved all the 9/11 conspiracy theories false.

The Northwood Memoraundum... strange....

Not true. A person that looks like Bin Laden took responsibility for the attacks, and that would be good enough for me except that it isn't bin laden in the video. Thus, they never took responsibility for anything. We have just been duped into believing that. But i think this thread will turn into WW3 if we start in on that discussion.

Can you spot which one the media and government has credited as taking responsibility for the attacks? Remember that ole game... "Which one of these things is not like the other...?"

 

[KSXNSX]

Al-Qeada has claimed responsibility for 9/11. 'Nuff said. Time, or Popular Mechanics or something proved all the 9/11 conspiracy theories false.

The Northwood Memoraundum... strange....

I never said there was a conspiracy behind 9/11, but I will say that it is not an outrageous claim. Operation Northwoods is not strange, it is eye-opening and frightening. The two scenarios are similar enough to make you think twice before immediately writing off a conspiracy theory. Again, all I am saying is that you shouldn't write-off either side without performing the due diligence.

IIRC (this is going back to college): Only one person opposed Operation Northwoods--John F. Kennedy.

Anyways, sorry for the mini-jack to the OP.

Back to Ron Paul...

He seems like a straight shooter. I am not sure how some of his policies would hold up (e.g. getting rid of the IRS) though. Can anyone explain what we would do without an income tax? I mean, would everyone just be responsible for themselves in terms of Social Security, etc.? And where would money for govt. spending come from? I mean, there MUST be at least some govt. spending. A lot of good has come out of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Cut all their spending, and you are cutting a lot of medical research.

 

[jond]

but on that note, are you making plans to attend the primaries? If you disagree with the media, what are you doing to change it?

"Let it not be said that we did nothing" - RP, May 24, 2007
http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=11015

Yeah, I'll vote for him in primaries. I just need to find out if I'm allowed to. I'm registered either as democrat or independent. Can't remember which. I'm fine with either of the top two democrat candidates, so I don't feel a need to vote on them. I would potentially be willing to vote for Ron Paul though in the final election if given the chance.

 

[Ncturnal]

At the present time the primaries in Virginia are open. The voter registration deadline is Jan 14.

http://www.sbe.virginia.gov/cms/Voter_Information/Index.html

 

[Ncturnal]

He seems like a straight shooter. I am not sure how some of his policies would hold up (e.g. getting rid of the IRS) though. Can anyone explain what we would do without an income tax? I mean, would everyone just be responsible for themselves in terms of Social Security, etc.? And where would money for govt. spending come from? I mean, there MUST be at least some govt. spending. A lot of good has come out of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Cut all their spending, and you are cutting a lot of medical research.

The income tax accounts for approximately 35-40% of the government's total revenue. Subtract the income tax and we'd still have a budget equal with levels in the year 2000. Of course we can't have a government like we have now, but I don't want a government like we have now. It would have to be smaller, but the trade-off is definitely worth it. Everyone's person economic outlook would be extremely improved if they had the first 5 months of their salary back in their pocket instead of giving it to the government to waste in many, if not the majority of cases. I'm not saying all government spending is bad, but we all know a lot of it is wasted. By far our largest expenditures are on our foreign empire, in fact we spend more than the rest of the world combined. If you eliminate the Iraq war expenses, the spending on 750 military bases in 130 countries, and foreign aid to puppet governments, we could easily eliminate the personal income tax. Couple that with eliminating wasteful spending here and we could easily have a surplus and work to reduce the debt. Just think how much was spent on Katrina in comparison to how little was accomplished. Surely there is a better way. I certainly think eliminating the income tax is feasible if we change governments role. I know I'd much rather decide how to spend my money rather than have some government bureaucrat decide for me. :smile:

Not true. A person that looks like Bin Laden took responsibility for the attacks, and that would be good enough for me except that it isn't bin laden in the video. Thus, they never took responsibility for anything. We have just been duped into believing that. But i think this thread will turn into WW3 if we start in on that discussion.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/bin_laden_videos.jpg

Can you spot which one the media and government has credited as taking responsibility for the attacks? Remember that ole game... "Which one of these things is not like the other...?"

No doubt. I'm skeptical of everything the government and media tells me. Regardless of who attacked us, it was clearly blowback from our foreign policies, meddling with other countries, and occupying their land. Even if Osama is responsible for the attacks, we are the ones who gave him a billion dollars in the 80s to radicalize him against the Soviets. Our meddling always bites us later.

 

[robr]

He didn't do so well in Iowa . If he's going to do well anywhere, it will be NH. If he doesn't win there, the writing's on the wall. In the past, the candidates have always been either a giant douche or a turd sandwich. Finally there's a candidate I actually want to endorse, but I'm not particularly hopeful. If he doesn't make the primaries, I'll be swinging over to Obama (which means here in MA, the red tape headache of changing my affiliation from republican to democrat since once I vote for Paul, my non-party affiliation will automatically be switched to republican).

 

[Ncturnal]

He didn't do so well in Iowa . If he's going to do well anywhere, it will be NH. If he doesn't win there, the writing's on the wall. In the past, the candidates have always been either a giant douche or a turd sandwich. Finally there's a candidate I actually want to endorse, but I'm not particularly hopeful. If he doesn't make the primaries, I'll be swinging over to Obama (which means here in MA, the red tape headache of changing my affiliation from republican to democrat since once I vote for Paul, my non-party affiliation will automatically be switched to republican).

I think he did extremely well considering the media bias against him. Even tonight when CNN was showing the results, you had this huge piece of the pie for "other" and we all know that was Ron Paul. Guiliani with all his free media coverage only got 3% and Ron isn't very far behind both McCain and Thompson, both of which got plenty of free media coverage as well. When you consider Ron has more cash on hand for this race than Ghouliani, Huck, McCain, and Romney (unless he throws even more of his own cash in) Ron's in pretty good shape. He wasn't expected to do well in Iowa with the evangelical & corn field farm subsidy vote and the straw polls there support this. I'd say 10% is pretty solid. NH is a completely different story and Ron is killing the straw polls there. Also, keep in mind....

Two of the worst Presidents in my lifetime.....need I say more? :biggrin: While it would be nice to win every state, Iowa certainly isn't indicative of the U.S. as a whole (thankfully).

 

[nsxotic911]

McCain! He's top in NH, but not so in Iowa.. I like huckabee as a person but if he takes it, he will lose against Obama or Hillary.
With McCain it will be tight either way but if Obam takes it, I will probably be ok. With Hilary, you'll have a repeat of the democratic revolt against Bush but now against Hillary

 

[SWIFTVISION]

Ron Paul is a great American.

RP in 08

 

[nsxotic911]

Ron Paul is a great American.

RP in 08

He is kind of my 2nd choice... but his Isolationism Foreign Policy & Iraq Plan I don't agree with.

 

[jalnjr]

he'll third party, if he doesn't vp.
not a lot of difference b'tween
elephants & donkeys.

go paul!
fwiw....we need a lil isolationism...... not a lot of
love in the world for sam.

 

[Ncturnal]

He is kind of my 2nd choice... but his Isolationism Foreign Policy & Iraq Plan I don't agree with.

You'd rather squander trillions in tax money overseas? There's nothing isolationist about his policies. We are far more hated, and therefore isolated now more than ever because of our meddling in the ME. It's also a huge factor in our economic decline since we are borrowing to pay for the war/foreign policy. How isolated are we going to be when we bankrupt the country? How vulnerable to terrorist attack will we be then?

 

[nsxotic911]

You'd rather squander trillions in tax money overseas? There's nothing isolationist about his policies. We are far more hated, and therefore isolated now more than ever because of our meddling in the ME. It's also a huge factor in our economic decline since we are borrowing to pay for the war/foreign policy. How isolated are we going to be when we bankrupt the country? How vulnerable to terrorist attack will we be then?

I do think we have to reconsider our ME policy and the effect on the deficit. Certain things have certaintly not quite worked.

At the risk of sounding like... Insert Least Favorite Conservative Politician herewhat has worked however is the recent surge bringing greater stability to IRAQ and pulling out immediately as Ron Paul & some of Democratic Politicians are advocating will be worse for Iraq, ME policy and our country. It would have/will brought the country into greater chaos with more hundreds of thousands people dying, and Al Qeada would be emboldened and have declared victory just as they had done when we left Somalia in 94/93 (?) creating a stronger safe haven than Afghanistan was in the 90s.

Before this threat gets out of hand - Let me be clear, I do believe that going into Iraq was..a mistake, if not naive, arrogant and stupid. However, pulling out before the right time - even if it is costly in dollars - is as big or bigger mistake.

I don't mean that we bomb anyone and everyone that says American hamburgers and cars suck...but I do mean that we can not be as naive. When the declaration of war from Bin Laden came that said "it is a Muslim's duty to kill every American, man, woman and child everywhere whether soldier or not" our respone was, literally "you and what army?"

Still don't get me wrong, we have to leave Iraq as soon as possible, and we have to rethink this co_..ergh "cowboy" mentality of shoot first, ask questionss later..

 

[R.I.P. NICK]

just follow the money......find out where a politician's money comes from.....this guy has my vote

he is the real deal