PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul didn't get above 2nd place in even ONE STATE today.




SonicInfinity
02-06-2008, 01:52 AM
This is absolutely impossible. Either it's been rigged somewhat or the people really ARE stupid.

If it's the latter, maybe we deserve Hillary as our next President.

Tdcci
02-06-2008, 01:55 AM
We'll get worse; Obama.

firebirdnation
02-06-2008, 01:57 AM
This is absolutely impossible. Either it's been rigged somewhat or the people really ARE stupid.

If it's the latter, maybe we deserve Hillary as our next President.

I blame HQ, and I don't think they did a very good job managing this campaign. If he doesn't change his staff now, it will be more of the same. The California coordinators were useless.

Primbs
02-06-2008, 01:57 AM
Ron Paul 2nd in Montana.

MrZach
02-06-2008, 01:57 AM
So what? Hundreds of thousands of people had the courage to take a stand. These people aren't going to drop away over night. They have demonstrated they have the integrity to vote on principles, and they have demonstrated they get it. They are going to evangelize.

Christianity started from just a few hundred people under intense persecution. Now, it is one of the largest and most influential religious in the world. Even Islam spawned out of Christianity... Nevermind what you think about the religion itself - it flourished in the face of persecution. So will we.

Starks
02-06-2008, 01:59 AM
We'll get worse; Obama.

Explain.

wackybrak
02-06-2008, 02:00 AM
i think obama will be fine, just because he's a democrat doesn't mean he's the antichrist ffs.

paul4justice
02-06-2008, 02:03 AM
Obama is a racialist nightmare, If you've ever read his books, you'll know that he is for two things... Black people, and Zionism. That "church" he goes to is more of a "hate on whitey temple" than anything else.

P4J

ronpaulblogsdotcom
02-06-2008, 02:05 AM
So if you mean first place why not just say that?

firebirdnation
02-06-2008, 02:05 AM
Obama is a racialist nightmare, If you've ever read his books, you'll know that he is for two things... Black people, and Zionism. That "church" he goes to is more of a "hate on whitey temple" than anything else.

P4J

You are 100% correct, but of course the MSM ignores this fact, but if RP had entered such a church for White folks, it would have made the national news cycle and would have been repeated hourly!

Molly1
02-06-2008, 02:06 AM
So what? Hundreds of thousands of people had the courage to take a stand. These people aren't going to drop away over night. They have demonstrated they have the integrity to vote on principles, and they have demonstrated they get it. They are going to evangelize.

Christianity started from just a few hundred people under intense persecution. Now, it is one of the largest and most influential religious in the world. Even Islam spawned out of Christianity... Nevermind what you think about the religion itself - it flourished in the face of persecution. So will we.

yes, the size of that vote shows he's not a 'fringe candidate.'

The interesting thing is--if you take the other three out of the race, I think all those who voted today for all candidates, would vote for Ron Paul.

You can't say the same of Mccain or Huckabee.

Romney? I think people like him, too, in general, but I think they would like Ron Paul more.

Starks
02-06-2008, 02:06 AM
Obama is a racialist nightmare, If you've ever read his books, you'll know that he is for two things... Black people, and Zionism. That "church" he goes to is more of a "hate on whitey temple" than anything else.

P4J

I don't see how he that possibly makes him more evil and less desirable than Senator Clinton.

The Tao Of Bill
02-06-2008, 02:06 AM
Obama is a racialist nightmare, If you've ever read his books, you'll know that he is for two things... Black people, and Zionism. That "church" he goes to is more of a "hate on whitey temple" than anything else.

P4J

Did you guys hear Ron Paul is actually a racist? Turns out he wrote some racist news letters.

ronpaulblogsdotcom
02-06-2008, 02:08 AM
Did you guys hear Ron Paul is actually a racist? Turns out he wrote some racist news letters.

No really? Are you kidding? Welcome to one month ago.

firebirdnation
02-06-2008, 02:08 AM
I don't see how he that possibly makes him more evil and less desirable than Senator Clinton.

You make a good point and I would say they are equally evil and I will vote for neither. I will write in Ron Paul if I have to!

Molly1
02-06-2008, 02:09 AM
Tao of schmao...just leave quietly, please.

Thank you.

hrdman2luv
02-06-2008, 02:12 AM
i think obama will be fine, just because he's a democrat doesn't mean he's the antichrist ffs.


If you were a trucker like me, you wouldn't think that.

coffeewithchess
02-06-2008, 02:17 AM
I blame HQ, and I don't think they did a very good job managing this campaign. If he doesn't change his staff now, it will be more of the same.

I don't blame the state coordinators, the only blame I see is on HQ. Somebody should have been fired after New Hampshire...

QCB79
02-06-2008, 02:19 AM
Did you guys hear Ron Paul is actually a racist? Turns out he wrote some racist news letters.

I really wish I could find the Obama pic thats was on the news tonight, I think it was CNN. They were doing a history of the candidates and they were profiling obama, there was a pic of him in his early years just out of college and he was leaning against a desk and there behind him on the wall were a ton of "x power" posters, it looked like HQ for the black panthers.

colecrowe
02-06-2008, 02:20 AM
we've got 8 months! get excited! read my sig!


I've donated a 4 digit sum that most would never consider doing. I simply don't have the resources or the hours at work to keep up anymore.

It's time for those who have been slacking to step up for those who can no longer donate.


People would step up if he went iNDY! Just ask around--especially people you know who already donated--ask them, "would you donate again if he continued to seek the Republican Nomination?"

Then ask them "would you donate if he announced that he was going to run as an iNDEPENDENT?"

my dad said he'd donate another 500 to Paul (IF he announces 3rd party) (he donated 200 on Dec. 16th--but that was when it seemed like he REALLY could maybe, possibly win the Nom. I would donate 500 the day he declares (even though it will hurt financially), whereas I can't afford to give anymore (I gave just over a 1,100 in Q4 to the cause--so shut up) for his Republican run; and gramps would probably wager another 1776.00

The 2nd and 3rd tier, broader-base of supporters aren't (many or most of them) going to donate MORE--if they already have once--because TO THEM it is obvious or at least nearly certain that he's not going to get the Nom from the Republican party (I'm not saying I believe that--but they DO). However, they would be very willing and enthusiastic about supporting him in an iNDEPENDENT run.

200,000 precinct captains, infomercials, and a 25 million dollar Independence Day money bomb!

Nobody is going to stop canvassing--no matter what. But almost everyone is hoping that if it becomes clear that he obviously can't get the Nom., he will go iNDY.

All I hear is yelling, and all I see is willful blindness, from the anti-iNDY folks.

Keep yelling. We however are hopeful for a Ron Paul whitehouse. We don't care if it is w/ out the GOP.

IF he doesn't do well enough in the next month or two, and then makes the calculated decision to run iNDY, and then declares say in March, and starts campaigning and runs a couple infomercials to pique some interest (emphasised because it's the most essential part), we could pick one perfect day, and make sure to have two months to plan it--and do everything in our power to make it better and bigger than the Tea Party. Independence Day would make so much sense--the country could declare it's independence from the parties, the special interests and lobbyists, the IRS, the Bankers, the Bush war and the Bush and McCain shamnesty, and the tax and spend Democrats--and we'd have 3 or however many months to prepare for it and drum up support. We could set a goal of 25 million in one day, and hope to shatter it. And then Ron Paul would have July, August, September, and October to spend it and raise more all along--while all along, for those 4 plus months, we could fill every precinct captain position and canvass and call every house--while Iraq continues exploding and the economy collapses.

nodope0695
02-06-2008, 02:22 AM
Did you guys hear Ron Paul is actually a racist? Turns out he wrote some racist news letters.

You ARE new, aren't you...? Did you just jump off the turnip truck?:mad:

nodope0695
02-06-2008, 02:24 AM
You make a good point and I would say they are equally evil and I will vote for neither. I will write in Ron Paul if I have to!

Amen, brother!! I'm going to take a giant sharpie marking pen with me to the poll and write RON PAUL in ON the electronic voting machine's screen.:D

LibertyEagle
02-06-2008, 02:27 AM
Did you guys hear Ron Paul is actually a racist? Turns out he wrote some racist news letters.

No. He did not. :mad:

IowaGarrett
02-06-2008, 02:31 AM
People really are stupid. I dont know why we ecourage EVERYONE to go out and vote. What we should encourage is for everyone to be informed. I think it would be FINE to ENCOURAGE people to stay at home on voting days unless they can name a two bills "their" candidate has authored.

We should form a PAC to braodcast commericials urging people to stay at home on voting day if any part of their decision is based on watching commericals...

Sorry, but after this election... I will never encourage random people to go vote again.

Heres an example of one good reason why:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/05/schneider-mccain-the-favorite-of-anti-war-republicans/
February 5, 2008
Schneider: ***McCain the favorite of anti-war Republicans***
Posted: 08:39 PM ET


McCain appears to be winning among anti-war Republican voters.
(CNN) — Another surprising finding in the national exit polls: John McCain — who has made the war in Iraq and the need for continued U.S. involvement there a centerpiece of his campaign — is actually winning among Republicans who are against the war. Among those Republicans who disapprove of the war, nearly half voted for McCain, while only a quarter voted for Mitt Romney — even though McCain spent the past few weeks trying to portray Romney as more liberal on the war.

Moderates — those most likely to disapprove of Iraq – seem to simply prefer McCain, even when they don't square on the issues.

– CNN Senior Political Analyst Bill Schneider


This is absolutely impossible. Either it's been rigged somewhat or the people really ARE stupid.

If it's the latter, maybe we deserve Hillary as our next President.

wildflower
02-06-2008, 02:33 AM
I know it sounds crazy, but what came to my mind today was that it feels like the whole thing is rigged.

I rarely ever encounter a McCain supporter. I don't know anyone who likes him.... and not only that, but on freerepublic, which has been the biggest conservative/Republican (now neocon) site for years, McCain is probably the LEAST popular candidate there. The overwhelming majority hate him.

How can it be that one of the biggest Republican sites on the web, there are very few McCain supporters, yet he is winning majorly among Republicans???

Is the disconnect between the internet and the real world that big? I thought more than 80% of people are online, so it seems unlikely that there could be such a big disconnect.

All I know is that McCain is VERY unpopular among conservatives, and most Republicans (at least on some big websites) so his big lead is very weird.

I get the feeling that our next president has been pre-selected, and the powers-that-be want McCain to get the GOP nomination, because he would be easy for Hillary to beat.

just my 2 cents. :(

Molly1
02-06-2008, 02:35 AM
I agree Wildflower.

But we are the fly in their ointment. :)

wildflower
02-06-2008, 02:38 AM
Well I'm glad I'm not the only one who has that suspicion. :p

libertarian4321
02-06-2008, 02:57 AM
Obama is a racialist nightmare, If you've ever read his books, you'll know that he is for two things... Black people, and Zionism. That "church" he goes to is more of a "hate on whitey temple" than anything else.

P4J

I read Obama's book.

I'm white, libertarian-conservative, and Republican.

I didn't see ANY of that.

Obama is a liberal, but I don't see him as evil.

You might want to take your hood off and reread the book...

Peace&Freedom
02-06-2008, 03:35 AM
my dad said he'd donate another 500 to Paul (IF he announces 3rd party) (he donated 200 on Dec. 16th--but that was when it seemed like he REALLY could maybe, possibly win the Nom. I would donate 500 the day he declares (even though it will hurt financially), whereas I can't afford to give anymore (I gave just over a 1,100 in Q4 to the cause--so shut up) for his Republican run; and gramps would probably wager another 1776.00

The 2nd and 3rd tier, broader-base of supporters aren't (many or most of them) going to donate MORE--if they already have once--because TO THEM it is obvious or at least nearly certain that he's not going to get the Nom from the Republican party (I'm not saying I believe that--but they DO). However, they would be very willing and enthusiastic about supporting him in an iNDEPENDENT run.

200,000 precinct captains, infomercials, and a 25 million dollar Independence Day money bomb!

Nobody is going to stop canvassing--no matter what. But almost everyone is hoping that if it becomes clear that he obviously can't get the Nom., he will go iNDY.

All I hear is yelling, and all I see is willful blindness, from the anti-iNDY folks.

Keep yelling. We however are hopeful for a Ron Paul whitehouse. We don't care if it is w/ out the GOP.

I know a few GREEN party folks (the nonsocialist subset) who have told me specifically they'd support Paul if he announced a third party run. I also have Democratic relatives who have told me they would vote for Paul if Obama was the Dem nominee. If Paul announced he was seeking a 3rd party line in addition to the GOP line, it would certainly help the canvassers and meetup members maintain their enthusiasm to keep persuading voters in their district to vote for Paul. Otherwise prolonged exposure to losing nights like this one will put people into "wind down operations mode."

SilentBull
02-06-2008, 07:45 AM
i think obama will be fine, just because he's a democrat doesn't mean he's the antichrist ffs.

I swear some of you people have no clue what you are fighting for. You're no better than those people that voted for McCain. Have you no idea what socialism is all about??????

ronpvoter
02-06-2008, 07:49 AM
This clip will confirm your (and my) suspicions about the PAID campaign staff:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XE2QSX5WrtI

No longer in good faith can I take away money from my family's savings, college fund etc. to donate to the campaign when the above clip indicates that those of us in the Grassroots are totally NOT appreciated.
And I was so close to "maxing out" my contributions too.

Gadsden Flag
02-06-2008, 07:58 AM
Why are there so many morons saying that the elections are rigged?

For crying out loud. why do you believe this when Ron paul was never above 5% in nationwide polls? Why do you seem to think that secretly there is a huge voting base which is being shut out, despite that fact that most of the voters you speak to have still never heard of Ron Paul?

webber53
02-06-2008, 08:05 AM
So what? Hundreds of thousands of people had the courage to take a stand. These people aren't going to drop away over night. They have demonstrated they have the integrity to vote on principles, and they have demonstrated they get it. They are going to evangelize.

Christianity started from just a few hundred people under intense persecution. Now, it is one of the largest and most influential religious in the world. Even Islam spawned out of Christianity... Nevermind what you think about the religion itself - it flourished in the face of persecution. So will we.

QFT

webber53
02-06-2008, 08:11 AM
I know it sounds crazy, but what came to my mind today was that it feels like the whole thing is rigged.

I rarely ever encounter a McCain supporter. I don't know anyone who likes him.... and not only that, but on freerepublic, which has been the biggest conservative/Republican (now neocon) site for years, McCain is probably the LEAST popular candidate there. The overwhelming majority hate him.

How can it be that one of the biggest Republican sites on the web, there are very few McCain supporters, yet he is winning majorly among Republicans???

Is the disconnect between the internet and the real world that big? I thought more than 80% of people are online, so it seems unlikely that there could be such a big disconnect.

All I know is that McCain is VERY unpopular among conservatives, and most Republicans (at least on some big websites) so his big lead is very weird.

I get the feeling that our next president has been pre-selected, and the powers-that-be want McCain to get the GOP nomination, because he would be easy for Hillary to beat.

just my 2 cents. :(

My conspiratorial side says the same thing to me!
My state (Florida) only had 30,000+ voters for Ron Paul?
Out of all the registered Republican voters in my state
only 30,00 voted for Ron Paul. There are that many in
Meetup groups around the state I would bet.

Something smells rotten I'm tellin ya!

KewlRonduderules
02-06-2008, 08:13 AM
This is absolutely impossible. Either it's been rigged somewhat or the people really ARE stupid.

"It's the electrolytes! Dumba$$"- the movie 'Idiocracy'


:p

LittleLightShining
02-06-2008, 08:14 AM
I don't see how he that possibly makes him more evil and less desirable than Senator Clinton.

Obama is already selling the New World Order. Hillary will scare us into it, Obama will make us want it. Well, not us, but you know what I mean. Another point to make is that Obama's spending plan is $70 billion dollars larger than Clinton's: http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=141

fireinme
02-06-2008, 08:32 AM
Fidel Castro endorsed both Hillary and Obama. I saw this on FOX! Is it true?

fireinme
02-06-2008, 08:37 AM
http://mediamatters.org/items/200708290012

Bossobass
02-06-2008, 08:38 AM
Why are there so many morons saying that the elections are rigged?

For crying out loud. why do you believe this when Ron paul was never above 5% in nationwide polls? Why do you seem to think that secretly there is a huge voting base which is being shut out, despite that fact that most of the voters you speak to have still never heard of Ron Paul?

If you truly believe that Bill Clinton could go from polling 1% to winning the white house without 'rigging', then it's you who are the moron.

McCain was broke, firing staff like the white house during watergate and polling in the basement and lost every debate and poll ever conducted. He burned through $30 million by the end of the 3rd quarter with nothing to show for it. He sang "bomb, bomb Iran" and told America he will stay in Iraq for 100 years or more.

Now, please explain how the man who has supported the war more than any other candidate, supports the 'surge' and exclaims that we'll be in Iraq for 100 years gets the anti-war vote? I'm all ears.

In fact, don't stop there. Please explain how McCain gets all of the issues ass backward and wins the nomination? And don't give me the shit that 'the public are morons'.

Amnesty for illegals.
War in Iraq for 100 years.
Bomb Iran.
McCain/Feingold
McCai/ Lieberman
McCain/Kennedy

Yeah. Sounds like the perfect Republican candidate, eh? If powerful people didn't want McCain at the top, the press would chew him up and spit him out...period.

Explain how Bush, who couldn't say a single coherent sentence, got elected...twice? Explain how 70% of Americans want out of Iraq, but Dems and Repubs both vote for more funding and more troops? Explain how Congress has the lowest rating in history, but the incumbents remain in office?

You think polls are relevant. How sad. You think the Arms Dealers, Exxon, Wall Street and the Bankers will leave the Presidency open to chance, or what Americans really want? How sad, indeed.

Get your head out of the sand.

Bosso

John P Slevin
02-06-2008, 08:38 AM
This is absolutely impossible. Either it's been rigged somewhat or the people really ARE stupid.

If it's the latter, maybe we deserve Hillary as our next President.

George Bush has twice been elected president and you are surprised to learn that most voters are idiots?

KewlRonduderules
02-06-2008, 08:40 AM
If you truly believe that Bill Clinton could go from polling 1% to winning the white house without 'rigging', then it's you who are the moron.

McCain was broke, firing staff like the white house during watergate and polling in the basement and lost every debate and poll ever conducted. He burned through $30 million by the end of the 3rd quarter with nothing to show for it. He sang "bomb, bomb Iran" and told America he will stay in Iraq for 100 years or more.

Now, please explain how the man who has supported the war more than any other candidate, supports the 'surge' and exclaims that we'll be in Iraq for 100 years gets the anti-war vote? I'm all ears.

In fact, don't stop there. Please explain how McCain gets all of the issues ass backward and wins the nomination? And don't give me the shit that 'the public are morons'.

Amnesty for illegals.
War in Iraq for 100 years.
Bomb Iran.
McCain/Feingold
McCai/ Lieberman
McCain/Kennedy

Yeah. Sounds like the perfect Republican candidate, eh? If powerful people didn't want McCain at the top, the press would chew him up and spit him out...period.

Explain how Bush, who couldn't say a single coherent sentence, got elected...twice? Explain how 70% of Americans want out of Iraq, but Dems and Repubs both vote for more funding and more troops? Explain how Congress has the lowest rating in history, but the incumbents remain in office?

You think polls are relevant. How sad. You think the Arms Dealers, Exxon, Wall Street and the Bankers will leave the Presidency open to chance, or what Americans really want? How sad, indeed.

Get your head out of the sand.

Bosso

I'm telling you it is the electrolytes!!!

:p

Shink
02-06-2008, 08:41 AM
I don't see how he that possibly makes him more evil and less desirable than Senator Clinton.

They are one in the same.

MiamiRP
02-06-2008, 08:48 AM
Fidel Castro endorsed both Hillary and Obama. I saw this on FOX! Is it true?

Probably true. He typically endorses democrats since they tend to be softer on the Cuba issues.

Ladiliberty
02-06-2008, 09:09 AM
My conspiratorial side says the same thing to me!
My state (Florida) only had 30,000+ voters for Ron Paul?
Out of all the registered Republican voters in my state
only 30,00 voted for Ron Paul. There are that many in
Meetup groups around the state I would bet.

Something smells rotten I'm tellin ya!

http://election.dos.state.fl.us/elections/resultsarchive/enight.asp

Sorry but your numbers are all wrong... RP garnered almost 63K votes... Keep in mind these are still not certified by the state, they had issues at various precincts across the state, go figure huh??? LOL

VOTE fraud is real watch HBO hacking democracy on google video...That said we did affidvaits in many precincts statewide... And sadly media does dictate americans opinions on voting... Mccain won hands down... What fools these mortals be...

colin1
02-06-2008, 09:16 AM
i think obama will be fine, just because he's a democrat doesn't mean he's the antichrist ffs.

Yeah, a big-spending, big government liberal who voted to reauthorize the Patriot Act and voted to fund the war. Uh-huh that'll be just fine. :rolleyes: Why don't you go back to your Obama forum, you're not going to find very fertile soil for your man here.

colin1
02-06-2008, 09:29 AM
This clip will confirm your (and my) suspicions about the PAID campaign staff:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XE2QSX5WrtI

No longer in good faith can I take away money from my family's savings, college fund etc. to donate to the campaign when the above clip indicates that those of us in the Grassroots are totally NOT appreciated.
And I was so close to "maxing out" my contributions too.

Disturbing video...I don't know if what these guys are saying is true, but if it is it's pretty outrageous. I mean, can you imagine the official campaign having a leading grassroots figure arrested? Ridiculous if true.

cac1963
02-06-2008, 09:33 AM
If it's Hillary vs. McCain, Hillary will win anyway so a 3rd party/Indy run wouldn't hurt anything. It would at least keep our freedom message focused and going forward. But if we think we're ignored by the media now, an indy run would relegate us to total darkness, so the question would be how many more voters can we reach successfully, given the results of our hard work leading up to these primaries?

My county has 70,000 registered voters, our meetup has about 120 members, and we've been working the area since June to see Paul only get 430 votes in our county. Not exactly the greatest prospects for a successful indy run in the general.

SWPitcher42
02-06-2008, 09:35 AM
Ok, so we need our own party, as it's obvious how irrevocably hijacked the republican party is by the GD neocons. Can they pretend an entire political party doesn't exist? Like Ron said, this is bigger than him. We just need the country back before the USA becomes USSR 2.0. I feel really bad for all the brave people that have sacrificed for over 2 centuries to make this the land of the free just so a bunch of greedy assholes could steal it.

LibertyEagle
02-06-2008, 09:40 AM
This clip will confirm your (and my) suspicions about the PAID campaign staff:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XE2QSX5WrtI

No longer in good faith can I take away money from my family's savings, college fund etc. to donate to the campaign when the above clip indicates that those of us in the Grassroots are totally NOT appreciated.
And I was so close to "maxing out" my contributions too.

Yeah, because someone made a YouTube, it just MUST be right, huh? :rolleyes:

LibertyRevolution
02-06-2008, 10:09 AM
I would vote obama over McCain. If given the choice of fascism or socialism, I guess ill go with Socialism...

nbhadja
02-06-2008, 10:15 AM
I would vote obama over McCain. If given the choice of fascism or socialism, I guess ill go with Socialism...

And Obama isn't for facism??? He voted for the patriot act, wants to invade Iran, Pakistan, voted to fund the iraq war for over 300 billion and regulate the internet.

They are both trash, the difference is that the dems also give more handouts to the bums so they will bankrupt us faster.

I would rather vote for a sack of shit than anyone other than RP.

firebirdnation
02-06-2008, 10:36 AM
I read Obama's book.

I'm white, libertarian-conservative, and Republican.

I didn't see ANY of that.

Obama is a liberal, but I don't see him as evil.

You might want to take your hood off and reread the book...

Perhaps you should google obamas church? ;)

Truth-Bringer
02-06-2008, 10:39 AM
We'll get worse; Obama.

Obama will not be worse than Hillary. Get real.

SeekLiberty
02-06-2008, 10:41 AM
I blame HQ, and I don't think they did a very good job managing this campaign. If he doesn't change his staff now, it will be more of the same. The California coordinators were useless.

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results." - Benjamin Franklin

- SL

Save America's ROOTS. Read this book online for free:

The American Ideal of 1776:
The Twelve Basic American Principles

http://lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal

nbhadja
02-06-2008, 10:41 AM
Obama will not be worse than Hillary. Get real.

They are both the same, maybe Obama is SLIGHTLY better.

LibertyRevolution
02-06-2008, 10:43 AM
Nope, that still sounds like socialism to me. The Dems want socialism controlled by a corrupt legislature.
The Dems dont want imperial presidential powers, that is the Republicans. That is why I could never vote for the Bush loving McCain.
Understand this though, If this country is to be a socialist state, then I am going to quit my job, work part time, collect welfare, government housing subsidizes, Government heating oil subsidizes, and any other program I can until the entire system collapses. I think everyone should do what I purpose, all at once. Show them why socialism fails.

Truth-Bringer
02-06-2008, 10:44 AM
Did you guys hear Ron Paul is actually a racist? Turns out he wrote some racist news letters.

This is an absolute lie which has been refuted numerous times:

There's nothing racist about Paul.

If you're really interested in Ron Paul's views on Racism, read this article written by the good doctor: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul381.html

And here's a longer article that totally refutes the racist allegations made against him:


http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=41822

Ron Paul Race Smear Erased?

Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - FreeMarketNews.com

Internet information claiming that presidential candidate Ron Paul (R-TX) is a racist – and made derogatory comments about African Americans - has been making the rounds within the blogosphere. But sources close to the editorial group that published the newsletter (or newsletters) that supposedly carried the comments claim that Ron Paul never had anything to do with them, and wasn’t even aware of them.

These sources say that editorial operation in question was a fairly large one, and profitable for its time - focused in large part on measures that one could take to generate a lifestyle independent of government influence and intervention.

The publication, or publications, comprised a business venture to which Ron Paul lent his name. Headquarters were “60 miles away” from Ron Paul’s personal Texas offices. At the time that the publications were being disseminated, primarily in the 1980s, Ron Paul was involved in numerous activities including Libertarian politics. He eventually ran for U.S. president as a Libertarian.

“This was a big operation,” says one source. “And Ron Paul was a busy man. He was doctor, a politician and free-market commentator. A publication had to go out at a certain time and Ron Paul often was not around to oversee the lay out, printing or mailing. Many times he did not participate in the composition, either.”

This source and others add that publications utilized guest writers and editors on a regular basis. Often these guest writers and editors would write a “Ron Paul” column, under which the derogatory comments might have been issued.

Says one source, “Ron Paul didn’t know about those comments, or know they were written under his name until much later when they were brought to his attention. There were several issues that went out with comments that he would not ordinarily make. He was angry when he saw them.”

Ron Paul has said that he did not write the comments in question, but, nonetheless, has taken "moral" responsibility for them.

An excerpt from an apparent interview with Texas Monthly as quoted on the blog Everything2.com clarifies the above information as follows:

"In spite of calls from Gary Bledsoe, the president of the Texas State Conference of the NAACP, and other civil rights leaders for an apology for such obvious racial typecasting, Paul stood his ground. He said only that his remarks about Barbara Jordan related to her stands on affirmative action and that his written comments about blacks were in the context of 'current events and statistical reports of the time.' He denied any racist intent. What made the statements in the publication even more puzzling was that, in four terms as a U. S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this.

"When I ask him why, he pauses for a moment, then says, 'I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren't really written by me. It wasn't my language at all. Other people help me with my newsletter as I travel around. I think the one on Barbara Jordan was the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady.' ...

"His reasons for keeping this a secret are harder to understand: 'They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them . . . I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn't come from me directly, but they campaign aides said that's too confusing. "It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it." ' It is a measure of his stubbornness, determination, and ultimately his contrarian nature that, until this surprising volte-face in our interview, he had never shared this secret. It seems, in retrospect, that it would have been far, far easier to have told the truth at the time."

http://everything2.com/index.pl?node=Ron%20Paul

The operative sentence in the above would seem to be: “What made the statements in the publication even more puzzling was that, in four terms as a U. S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this.” The remarks may well have been seen as out of character because they were not written by Ron Paul, and he had no knowledge of them and no input into their composition, even though he eventually took responsibility for them.

Adds a source aware of the current tempest over these remarks, “Anybody who claims that Ron Paul made the comments in question is deliberately mis-stating what occurred to make political points. It is a measure of [his opponents] desperation that they are dredging this up again. Anybody who reads all that he has written – and there’s lots of it – could see that right away.”

Truth-Bringer
02-06-2008, 10:49 AM
Nope, that still sounds like socialism to me. The Dems want socialism controlled by a corrupt legislature.
The Dems dont want imperial presidential powers, that is the Republicans. That is why I could never vote for the Bush loving McCain.
Understand this though, If this country is to be a socialist state, then I am going to quit my job, work part time, collect welfare, government housing subsidizes, Government heating oil subsidizes, and any other program I can until the entire system collapses. I think everyone should do what I purpose, all at once. Show them why socialism fails.

No, I don't agree with that. Rather, let's move what money we can offshore, (http://www.ptshamrock.com) and start funding freedom/libertarian oriented groups and groups like Judicial Watch that constantly sue corrupt politicians. If they're going to try and make our lives miserable, let's fight back tooth and nail and make their lives miserable as well.

This is not the time to give up. It's just a time to re-group and implement new strategies.

Truth-Bringer
02-06-2008, 10:49 AM
They are both the same, maybe Obama is SLIGHTLY better.

Policy-wise, yes, they are close. But the Clintons are more corrupt.

Shellshock1918
02-06-2008, 11:04 AM
This is absolutely impossible. Either it's been rigged somewhat or the people really ARE stupid.

If it's the latter, maybe we deserve Hillary as our next President.

I think it is because people are ignorant. Not to insult them but they are generally unaware of Paul and his positions. I think the exit polls in New York showed that those dissatisfied with the war went with McCain. WTH? See this shows how much control the media has on things.

A. Havnes
02-06-2008, 11:26 AM
I smell voter fraud.

Pauliana
02-06-2008, 11:30 AM
Who's in control of this thing? Not Rush Limbaugh. Not Hannity. Not Ann Coulter. Who are the leaders in the GOP anymore?

Also, if you look here: http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/primary/caucus-results-2008-02-05.html

It looks like McCain won in a lot of blue states, which won't do the GOP any good come November. Similarly, Obama won a lot of red states, which won't do the Dems any good come November.

The blue states went for Hillary, the red states went for Romney.

Just very interesting.

Bubba
02-06-2008, 11:50 AM
Why are there so many morons saying that the elections are rigged?

For crying out loud. why do you believe this when Ron paul was never above 5% in nationwide polls? Why do you seem to think that secretly there is a huge voting base which is being shut out, despite that fact that most of the voters you speak to have still never heard of Ron Paul?

Ha! Gotcha! :D You said it yourself. "...the fact that most of the voters you speak to have still never heard of Ron Paul..."

And, why would that be? Hmmmmmmmmmmm? MSM blackouts, that's why. That's media rigging.

Reports of ballots with names of those who have dropped out still on them while RP's name had been removed because he had "dropped out". Over 70% of folks are against the war yet "100 MORE Years War" McCain is the national darling?That's election rigging.

Middle East? Undeclared Act of War. That's world rigging and it ain't just oil rigs either.

Federal Reserve Bank? That's monetary rigging.

Income Tax? That's slavery rigging.

blah blah blah RIG ME NOT !!!!!!!

allyinoh
02-06-2008, 11:52 AM
I blame HQ, and I don't think they did a very good job managing this campaign. If he doesn't change his staff now, it will be more of the same. The California coordinators were useless.

What did you do in your state?

You can only control what YOU do.

I'm SICK of hearing people place blame on the HQ! Quit placing blame, take responsibility and do it better!

If you aren't seeing/hearing ads, get th emoney together to run them. Don't wait around on HQ, that's the worst mistake you can make... Then when they don't do what you want you blame them. it makes no sense.

firebirdnation
02-06-2008, 12:20 PM
What did you do in your state?

You can only control what YOU do.

I'm SICK of hearing people place blame on the HQ! Quit placing blame, take responsibility and do it better!

If you aren't seeing/hearing ads, get th emoney together to run them. Don't wait around on HQ, that's the worst mistake you can make... Then when they don't do what you want you blame them. it makes no sense.



Actually, you are 100% wrong. McCain won California without a single boot on the ground. He won by advertising in California. I didn't see a single Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, or Huckabee ad in California, but I seen a bunch of John McCain ads. The older population is still getting their information from TV Ads. Unfortunately, I am not a millionaire and cannot afford to run commercials in this area. I did canvass my precinct, and it didn't do any good. Go ahead, continue to do the same thing expecting a different result.

entwife
02-06-2008, 01:04 PM
I don't see how he that possibly makes him more evil and less desirable than Senator Clinton.

Because racism is evil, even when it's a black person? Hillary isn't racist, she's not going to church dedicated to hate. She's probably the least racist of the other candidates.

The Tao Of Bill
02-07-2008, 03:49 PM
I got myself in trouble with the mods for the past couple days for a comment I made in this thread about Ron Paul's racist newsletters. I was banned because of it but I guess I have to clarify what I was saying because too many people took it the wrong way.

I am a Ron Paul supporter and I have consistently defended Ron Paul against the racist rumors. But I also defend candidates I don't agree with when people spread the same kind of baseless propaganda and rumors against them. I just don't like dirty politics.

So when someone was calling Barack Obama a racist because of the church he went to with little other evidence backing the statement up other than guilt by association I decided to make a point. I thought it was completely hypocritical for a Paul supporter to make a statement like that when Ron Paul was going through the same criticism based on little evidence other than guilt by association. I figured everyone would read my sarcasm because quite frankly it's the oldest attack on Ron Paul in the book and anyone who has gotten away with 80 posts on this forum isn't going to be saying shit like that.


But I apparently misjudged the forums ability to read sarcasm. My mistake. I should have been more clear and put a sarcasm tag. Anyway I got banned for it and after some arguing with the mods I was let back in. Sorry if I offended anyone but you simply took my comment the wrong way. I support Ron Paul's platform 100%.