President Paul

I couldn't believe it when America decided to invade Iraq. That country had nothing to do with 9/11 and they had to make up an excuse to invade it. Ron Paul was spot on about the reasons for 9/11 and the only person brave enough to tell it the way it really is. I visited the middle east in the late 70s - went to Iran, Syria and Iraq and even then the hatred towards the Americans was well established because of their policies in the Middle East.
Those countries do not like outside interference and certainly not western occupied forces.

I opposed the Iraq war openly on the internet and got some very abusive comments back from US citizens at the time who were in support of it so I can only imagine the abuse Ron Paul must have got opposing it. Thats what I like about him, he sticks to his principles and does not give in to popular opinion.
There are some things which I disagree with him on but no politician can please everyone all the time but at least with him you know he is not going to suddenly change his mind after the election like most politicians.
I think if he did become president he would have a real battle implementing any radical changes.
 
A rather short book that everyone should read is Confessions of an Economic Hitman by, John Perkins

it has a lot to do with the reasons why so many people hate the United States.
 
Wout said:
Look at what Rick Perry has done in Texas since hes become governor.. increased the size of government immensely, higher taxes, tripled the debt and the list goes on yet the mainstream focuses on the fact hes "created" a million jobs (170,000 government jobs included) without looking at anything else and not talking about the good jobs that were destroyed to make way for the cheap stimulus jobs that will disappear when the debt financed stimulus evaporates
Click to expand...

Rick Perry tells it like it is man. See for yourself [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysAqO8nG-QA&feature=related[/youtube]
 
samboyellowsub said:
A rather short book that everyone should read is Confessions of an Economic Hitman by, John Perkins

it has a lot to do with the reasons why so many people hate the United States.
Click to expand...
+1 An excellent read though I'm still undecided about the authors personal credibility.
 
luckylukeonline said:
samboyellowsub said:
A rather short book that everyone should read is Confessions of an Economic Hitman by, John Perkins

it has a lot to do with the reasons why so many people hate the United States.
Click to expand...
+1 An excellent read though I'm still undecided about the authors personal credibility.
Click to expand...

that's understandable after everything he admits to in that book!
 
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3_EXqJ8f-0[/youtube]

War is a Racket by Smedley Butler is a famous speech denouncing the military industrial complex. This speech by two-time Congressional Medal of Honor recipient exposes war profits that benefit few at the expense of many. Throughout his distinguished career in the Marines, Smedley Darlington Butler demonstrated that true patriotism does not mean blind allegiance to government policies with which one does not agree.
 
goldpanner said:
I apologize for the following comment if it offends anyone but Perry comes across to me as a dangerous pseudo religeous hypocritic (I just toned that down from my original rant! :) )and God help the USA if he gets elected!
Have you seen the video where he starts a speech by calling everyone to prayer? I believe that religeon should be kept firmly out of politics!
He has had no mercy for those convicted and sentenced to death who may have been innocent! I see a real mean streak in that guy under his false smile which he seems to use whenever he is actually peeved at someone asking him awkward questions. He is scarey! Watch some of his interviews.
I also believe that he wouldn't stop at anything to get rid of Ron Paul.
Click to expand...

Then again maybe the US economy as it stands needs a pray :/
 
I don't quite understand. If Ron Paul won in almost all polls, how come he came in third place nationally behind Romney and Perry?
 
popcorn said:
I don't quite understand. If Ron Paul won in almost all polls, how come he came in third place nationally behind Romney and Perry?
Click to expand...

simple - the elections are rigged to ensure he is kept out.
 
goldpanner said:
I couldn't believe it when America decided to invade Iraq. That country had nothing to do with 9/11 and they had to make up an excuse to invade it. Ron Paul was spot on about the reasons for 9/11 and the only person brave enough to tell it the way it really is. I visited the middle east in the late 70s - went to Iran, Syria and Iraq and even then the hatred towards the Americans was well established because of their policies in the Middle East.
Those countries do not like outside interference and certainly not western occupied forces.

I opposed the Iraq war openly on the internet and got some very abusive comments back from US citizens at the time who were in support of it so I can only imagine the abuse Ron Paul must have got opposing it. Thats what I like about him, he sticks to his principles and does not give in to popular opinion.
There are some things which I disagree with him on but no politician can please everyone all the time but at least with him you know he is not going to suddenly change his mind after the election like most politicians.
I think if he did become president he would have a real battle implementing any radical changes.
Click to expand...

With regard to your views, I couldn't agree with you more on every single point you made above. Opinions, views, beliefs expressed on forums give good insight into the real person behind the forum anonymity. For the record, I also opposed the Iraq invasion both on the internet and in real life, copping the same generally abusive response both from within the US and outside the US (ie when living and visiting the US). The responses appear to be much the same with opinions on Ron Paul from those opposing him. I've been watching Ron Paul (and hearing the views of US friends and relatives) about Ron Paul during his two previous runs as a Presidential nominee. In the main, he has been castigated and lampooned as an isolationist religeous nut (a grossly unfair representation I might add). Unfortunately I don't think he has any more chance of getting voted in this time round, than any other time around. I think its just a case, for whatever reason, of politically savy Australians (on both sides of the political spectrum) being more aware of his running again this time, and being more aware of how the mainstream US media appears to be sidelining/ignoring him as a serious candidate.

IF Ron Paul were voted in as President, he would be like a cat amongst pidgeons, and attempt to turn the US system (monetary, foreign policy..... even current culture) on its head. For that reason, I don't think, he has a hope in hell of being voted President of the USA. I would love to be proven outright wrong though.
 
Saw him on Jon Stuart again last night. Jon, you can tell really admires him for being so consistent, even though he doesn't completely agree with all Rons views. In posing some very normal tough questions to Ron he does so with utmost respect.

Jon Stewart has a huge following among all the liberals and among the conservatives that hate the propaganda machine of the radical warmongering republicans.

Was thinking at the time if Ron was to get the nomination, having Stewart as a running mate would be a trump card for president. Think about it for a second. Yes he is a comedian, but there are plenty out there that like Ron for his honesty and integrity and understand he is the best for the economy. Having Stewart on board would be seen as providing balance to the conservatives that would draw millions of votes from the left. He would also be perfect for providing the attacks that the Presedential race would turn into.
 
Lovey80 said:
Saw him on Jon Stuart again last night. Jon, you can tell really admires him for being so consistent, even though he doesn't completely agree with all Rons views. In posing some very normal tough questions to Ron he does so with utmost respect.

Jon Stewart has a huge following among all the liberals and among the conservatives that hate the propaganda machine of the radical warmongering republicans.

Was thinking at the time if Ron was to get the nomination, having Stewart as a running mate would be a trump card for president. Think about it for a second. Yes he is a comedian, but there are plenty out there that like Ron for his honesty and integrity and understand he is the best for the economy. Having Stewart on board would be seen as providing balance to the conservatives that would draw millions of votes from the left. He would also be perfect for providing the attacks that the Presidential race would turn into.
Click to expand...
I'm a Libertarian who doesn't like radical warmongering republicans, yet Stuart makes me puke because he's so blatantly partisan and generally a smarmy lil troll.
Ron Paul is not electable because he believes too much in self-responsibility which automatically puts him at odds with 90% of liberals.
It's a shame, he's a wise insightful man.
 
940palmtx said:
Ron Paul is not electable because he believes too much in self-responsibility which automatically puts him at odds with 90% of liberals.
Click to expand...
As Ron Paul is running as a candidate for the Republican Party's choice of Presidential nominee (ie as a conservative), how much is he at odds with the countries conservative voters? 90% too?

Ron Paul tried to previously run as an Independant and got slammed by Liberals and Conservatives alike. The only thing that has changed with Ron Paul putting himself forward this time is that he is doing it as a Republican rather than independant. His views and opinions however have remained consistant.
 
940palmtx said:
Lovey80 said:
Saw him on Jon Stuart again last night. Jon, you can tell really admires him for being so consistent, even though he doesn't completely agree with all Rons views. In posing some very normal tough questions to Ron he does so with utmost respect.

Jon Stewart has a huge following among all the liberals and among the conservatives that hate the propaganda machine of the radical warmongering republicans.

Was thinking at the time if Ron was to get the nomination, having Stewart as a running mate would be a trump card for president. Think about it for a second. Yes he is a comedian, but there are plenty out there that like Ron for his honesty and integrity and understand he is the best for the economy. Having Stewart on board would be seen as providing balance to the conservatives that would draw millions of votes from the left. He would also be perfect for providing the attacks that the Presidential race would turn into.
Click to expand...
I'm a Libertarian who doesn't like radical warmongering republicans, yet Stuart makes me puke because he's so blatantly partisan and generally a smarmy lil troll.
Ron Paul is not electable because he believes too much in self-responsibility which automatically puts him at odds with 90% of liberals.
It's a shame, he's a wise insightful man.
Click to expand...

Ron Paul is the true 'liberal' here. the word "liberal" has been hijacked by those who are everything BUT "liberal" - the Fabian scumbag socialists...
 
luckylukeonline said:
940palmtx said:
Ron Paul is not electable because he believes too much in self-responsibility which automatically puts him at odds with 90% of liberals.
Click to expand...
As Ron Paul is running as a candidate for the Republican Party's choice of Presidential nominee (ie as a conservative), how much is he at odds with the countries conservative voters? 90% too?

Ron Paul tried to previously run as an Independant and got slammed by Liberals and Conservatives alike. The only thing that has changed with Ron Paul putting himself forward this time is that he is doing it as a Republican rather than independant. His views and opinions however have remained consistant.
Click to expand...
"At odds" with about 50% of Republicans and 100% of conservatives. Half the 'publicans are moderate leaning the other half fairly conservative.
 
The true meaning of "liberal" is what is nowdays referred to as "libertarian" ...

This is highly misleading, because the warped modern day hijacked interpretation of the term 'liberal' stands instead for massive government intervention, control and the stripping away of individual liberties! This is hardly "liberal" wouldn't you say??!! :lol:

The Democrats are supposedly "liberals" - yet they are the ones most likely to initiate gold confiscation from private citizens. LIBERALISM has become synonymous with collectivism!!
 
Yippe-Ki-Ya said:
The true meaning of "liberal" is what is nowdays referred to as "libertarian" ...

This is highly misleading, because the warped modern day hijacked interpretation of the term 'liberal' stands instead for massive government intervention, control and the stripping away of individual liberties! This is hardly "liberal" wouldn't you say??!! :lol:

The Democrats are supposedly "liberals" - yet they are the ones most likely to initiate gold confiscation from private citizens. LIBERALISM has become synonymous with collectivism!!
Click to expand...
Very true. Would someone "liberal" support weapons confiscation too? NO
Would a "liberal" person support taking parenting away from parents? NO
There is no greater misnomer I know of that the term liberal referring to most Dems.
Of course their new name is "progressive" LMAO almost as bad!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top