shocking threats against ron paul supporters by neocons!!! <object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/W8wjJieSib0&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/W8wjJieSib0&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
huckabee was doing terribly.... no support... So was Bill Clinton, so was John Kerry. Doing terribly half a year before the first primaries means nothing, he was not known to the majority of the public, no one was paying attention at the time. then the media jumps in with their surge... Actually then he started campaigning, the voters started paying attention, religious, social conservatives started looking for a candidate who represented their values (and Romney, Giuliani or McCain did not cut it), then Huckabee was endorsed by Chuck Norris, then he won straw poll at Values Voters Summit, then he was head and shoulders above the competition during the debates then he started surging and only then as you said "the media jumps in with their surge." and the media lies and says he is winning. actually the media is still saying that his surge is good for Giuliani... dumbasses like you fall for it. What exactly did I fall for? In fact I predicted Huckabee's rise when he was still at 3-5% nationally. That Huckabee is a true social conservative, the most authentic, genuine, well-spoken, intelligent candidate and the best debater among the republicans was obvious a long time ago to anyone who paid attention and had an open mind. I knew several months ago that he had a very good shot at the nomination and the best chance to beat a democrat. I actually wrote that in my post at the end of October, long before the talk about the surge even started. http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1661465&highlight=huckabee#post1661465
this is worse than the WWF.... its all scripted. wake up doodoo.... im sorry you hate Ron Paul so much... does freedom scare you? do you hate our freedoms? which of his positions scares you the most? oh wait.. you're a war monger i forgot. you are afraid we will pull out of the illegal iraq war that was started based on lies of the neocons.
I don't hate him. I consider him to be a fringe candidate and ignore him, I have hardly every mentioned his name in my posts. In fact I am sure he is sincere in his convictions and I find it quite remarkable. Too bad his ideas are absurd, simplistic and wacky. Sorry I just don't believe in simple solutions to complicated international, domestic and economic problems. PS it does not matter how much money he has, he can't sell his message, 95% of americans disagree with him on issues. He is actually lucky to be ignored by the media, if they started to scrutinize his voting record his support would have dropped to 2%.
What'chu talkin' about, Willis? Hasn't congressman Paul always consistently voted against big government?
There has never been a vote for or against big government. There's been a lot of votes for specific programs, political actions or resolutions on international matters. I don't have his voting record and I am not interested in wasting my time to research it but I do remember reading that he had cast quite a number of extremely weird/extremist votes that would never resonate with the american people. I admire his honesty and integrity but he is an extremist (all libertarians are ) and he is not where the rest of the country is. PS a couple of examples: Ron Paul was the only member of Congress to vote against giving the Congressional Medal of Freedom to Rosa Parks. (and that was in the 90s, not the 50s). He was one of the few to vote against the Civil Rights Act... Right or wrong I doubt that will bode well with the voters.
"Paul, 70, has earned the nickname Dr. No for his habit of voting against just about anything that he sees as government overreach or that interferes with the free market. No to the Iraq war. No to a federal ban on same-sex marriage. No to a congressional gold medal for Pope John Paul II and Ronald Reagan and Rosa Parks. He says the medals are an unconstitutional use of taxpayer money and once suggested each House member instead contribute 100 bucks from his or her own pocket." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/08/AR2006070800966.html
But what are Ron Paul's policies, and how will they affect government corruption and economic inequality? Ron Paul is opposed to big government, which he defines as a government that wants to "run every aspect of our lives." He is opposed to federal intervention of any kind in the lives of American citizens, including income tax and financial assistance from Medicare and Medicaid. He believes that the free market, left to itself, will provide Americans with more freedom, and that a massive and meddling federal government is to blame for the aforementioned signs of decline within the U.S. What these beliefs fail to take into consideration is the entirety of human history preceding the U.S. government in its present form. Historically, the only difference between a country that, for example, exploits child labor, and one that does not, is a democratic government that first outlaws child labor and then uses a police agency to enforce its laws. Without government intervention in the U.S. economy, child labor could easily make a comeback. This might sound outlandish, until we stop to consider that child labor was common practice in the United States until the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and remains a common practice today in impoverished countries all over the world. (Many children in these impoverished countries work in factories that produce goods for American corporations: wealthy Americans continue to exploit child labor in the 21st century.) So it isn't difficult to see that Ron Paul's vision of a completely free society will not come about as a result of our dismantling a large portion of the federal government. Without laws regulating human behavior, including laws concerning what the powerful can do to the powerless, there can be no freedom. Left to itself, a free' market will naturally create a more and more pronounced divide between rich and poor, until there are only two classes: the extremely rich and the extremely poor. And, as mentioned, the extremely rich, dissatisfied with mere extreme wealth, will continue to expand their power, taking more and more away from the poor, until a combination of foreign threats (economic or otherwise) and popular uprisings in the homeland destroy any chance of the nation's survival. In order for people with less power to feel as if they have some control over their own lives, they need assistance from their government. People with fewer resources and opportunities than the super-rich need a chance to get a good education, to have access to nutritious food and proper healthcare, and to move up the economic ladder, away from poverty and powerlessness. If Ron Paul's policies are ever enforced within the U.S., those with the least power will lose many opportunities now offered by their government, and people with the most power will, once again, feel free to trample all over the human rights of the poor. History has shown that free markets without artificially imposed limitations upon simple human avarice will invariably produce the same result: a dead civilization. And this is exactly what Ron Paul's policies offer us. http://www.helium.com/tm/483414/attentive-student-history-quickly
is this how you ignore him? wetting your pants all over this thread? LMAOOOOOO priceless! zogby poll showed that the majority of americans agreed with all of his policies. so... you want to do a battle of the polls? my poll is better than your poll? get real... other candidates have tried to duplicate his money bomb with zero success. hmmmmm... but fools listen to major media propaganda results? unreal sheeple.
yet..... ZZZZZZZZZzzzz the uber coward continues not to support any candidates, cause he is skeereddddd.