watch democrats convert before your very eyes, inspiring!

[abers076]

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_bill_dou_071218_confessions_of_a_def.htm

amazing...amazing...

[NerveShocker]

<--- converted democrat ;) Go RoN PauL!

[Ben Elliott]

<--- converted democrat.

[liberty_rp08]

Send this link to your Democratic and Independent friends!

http://www.RepublicanForADay.com/

[kushaze]

I never voted and I never planned on voting until I saw Dr. Paul speak.

[TwiLeXia]

Same. (Obama Supporter)

Now die-hard Ron Paul fanatic.

Lol. J/k, but on Obama's camp I was merely a fan. In Paul's camp, I am a supporter, an active participant.

[Dequeant]

<---- Converted neocon

[Shavenyak]

I've been switching between Independant and Republican for the last 12 years. This year I was going to register Democrat to vote for Richardson.....until I discovered Ron Paul. It sounds so cliche, but he really did cure my apathy.

[Grandson of Liberty]

<------ recovering neo-con, sober 3 years.

[Yaron Nahari]

With regards to Jerry Brown whom he mentions:


Despite poor showings in the Iowa caucus (1.6%) and the New Hampshire primary (8.0%), Brown soon managed to win narrow victories in Maine, Colorado, Nevada, Alaska, and Vermont, but he continued to be considered an also-ran for much of the campaign. It was not until shortly after Super Tuesday, when the field had been narrowed to Brown, former Senator Paul Tsongas of Massachusetts, and frontrunning Governor Bill Clinton of Arkansas, that Brown began to emerge as a major contender in the eyes of the press.

On March 17, Brown forced Tsongas from the race when he received a strong third-place showing in the Illinois primary and then defeated the senator for second place in the Michigan primary by a wide margin. Exactly one week later, he cemented his position as a major threat to Clinton when he eked out a narrow win in the bitterly-fought Connecticut primary.

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

[AggieforPaul]

<------------------ Converted neo-con

[nist7]

<---------------------converted apathy

:D

It's sooooo funny watching ex-liberals bashing on neo-liberals......ahahahahaha

I guess the same could be said for ex-neocons and neocons as well. Damn, Ron Paul is cleaning both bags of bat-guano from the inside out!!!

[Joe3113]

Same. (Obama Supporter)

Now die-hard Ron Paul fanatic.

Lol. J/k, but on Obama's camp I was merely a fan. In Paul's camp, I am a supporter, an active participant.

Glad you saw the light........I'm just curious as to what goes through a person's mind when they support that slimeball.....I guess he is the lesser of evils on the frontrunner democratic side, but what about Kucinich.

[LibertyForAll]

Amazing!

[Abobo]

Nice! Now we just have to convert him to a full on libertarian :P

[Grandson of Liberty]

Ron Paul is here to chew bubble-gum and Kick Ass, and he just ran out of bubble-gum

That is just begging for some youtube "They Live" editing! Please, someone with the knowhow out there make it happen!

[ursamajor]

not really into the 'republican for a day thing'. granted, i am registered independent in my open primary state of georgia. but i think it sends the wrong message.

[nist7]

Glad you saw the light........I'm just curious as to what goes through a person's mind when they support that slimeball.....I guess he is the lesser of evils on the frontrunner democratic side, but what about Kucinich.

Kucinich, principally speaking, is on the same page as Ron Paul. Both are honest men who are fighting for what they believe is right and no lobbyist can sway their opinion.

I respect any liberal who supports Kucinich because he is the only true liberal on the democrat side...just like Ron Paul is the only true conservative on the republican side.

Kucinich has a fundamentally different view point than Ron Paul with regards to the role of the government...but that is a philosophical difference...one that is VERY difficult to change once you have subscribed to that....unlike the Obama/Clinton/etc. supporters. True/diehard liberals will vote for Kucinich. But they will also see and show respect towards Ron Paul supporters because while we are so far apart in our ideologies.....we are also oh so close.

[smartguy911]

<---- converted democrat

I always believed Republican party was for big businesses and for wealthy people and that's why I always favored Democrats. Dr. Paul showed me the true meaning and what Republican party stood for in the past (berry goldwater). Deep down inside I was always a Republican, I just didn't know about it. :-)

[rwl4]

<------ converted apathetic

[V4Vendetta]

Wolf: Amazing..... Amazing.....
(thud)

Wolf Faints

[pickfair]

Also a converted Democrat. :)

[Ara825]

Another converted Democrat here

[nbhadja]

<----- converted apathetic

Every measure I see indicates that a small # of RP supporters fall in the "likely republican voter" criteria used to determine who the polls include.
Get ready for a shock, msm!

[NewEnd]

awesome, hope inspirign article.
More thana democrat, an activist democrat.

[V4Vendetta]

Another converted Democrat here

Wolf: Amazing..... Amazing.....
(thud)

Wolf Faints

[Tedhunter]

My girlfriend identifies herself as a liberal, and she loves Kucinich. I think she could be swayed to join us - but she's scared as hell about Ron's view on abortion. She also doesn't trust the idea that respecting property rights is the best answer for environmental issues - her rationale there is that big companies can use their legal resources to delay trials indefinitely.

So, I'm not really sure what to tell her.

[NewEnd]

My girlfriend identifies herself as a liberal, and she loves Kucinich. She's scared as hell about Ron's view on abortion though, and I'm not really sure what to tell her. She also doesn't trust the idea that respecting property rights is the best answer for environmental issues - her rationale there is that big companies can use their legal resources to delay trials.

I just don't know what to tell her.


there will be a super-Democratic congress. the worst paul can do is appoint a judge that would send Abortion to the states.

and she is right about the environment, IMHO, here where I live, Artesco put a whole bunch of Arsenic in the ground... adn then went bankrupt... and you cannot bleed a turnip. I think environmental protection should be pro-active, not reactive.

[tomveil]

<---- Converted Obamian

Love his ideas and his vision. Sadly, we don't have the government that can pull it off. My wet dream is Ron Paul as president and Barack Obama as VP, in charge of making social programs more efficent and transparent as we transition out of them.

[Tedhunter]

there will be a super-Democratic congress. the worst paul can do is appoint a judge that would send Abortion to the states.

That's actually the concern she mentioned - that he might be in a position to appoint an "activist" judge to the Supreme Court during his time in office.



I think environmental protection should be pro-active, not reactive.

Do you think the federal government is the only entity that can effectively take that sort of preventative action?

[shagywashere]

I didn't know who I was going to vote for, but I knew it wasn't going to be Republican...until I seen Ron Paul. I didn't really like the Democrats but I liked Gravel and from Gravel I seen a video of RP....WOOO

[tomveil]

Glad you saw the light........I'm just curious as to what goes through a person's mind when they support that slimeball.....I guess he is the lesser of evils on the frontrunner democratic side, but what about Kucinich.

I know this wasn't directed at me, but I'd like to answer anyway :)

The idea that we should all be one community and not be divided.
That we should have actual debates about positions and policies.
That government should be transparent and accountable to the people.
That Iraq was wrong and we should have never gone in.

I honestly think that eventually in the future we will all be one big happy society, helping each other and using our resources for common good. But we're not in that world yet, and this government has no chance to get us there. Obama represents what government SHOULD be (to a "socialist" like myself), not what government IS. Sadly, he can't turn it around by himself. I still think that he'll be a great president in 8 years after Dr. Paul is done. He can continue with his ideas of government, but only after we clean house for a while.

[Austin]

I was on the path to become a Neocon, via Fox News.

Thank God for Freedom to Fascism, otherwise I'd be a drone right about now, probably supporting Giuliani.

[ronpaulfollower999]

<---- converted democrat

[NewEnd]

Do you think the federal government is the only entity that can effectively take that sort of preventative action?

Naw, state and local governemtn can usually watch out for their own watersheds, but border areas may need federal intervention.

there is no way in heel I could be convinced the national parks need to be privatized though. Forget it.


That's actually the concern she mentioned - that he might be in a position to appoint an "activist" judge to the Supreme Court during his time in office.



there are 3 possible positions
pro-life
pro choice
left to the states

rigth now, the court leans pro-life.
It could go either way. Soon, abortions may be banned nationwide. If it is determined the court has this jurisdiction, then boom, so it is written, so it is done.

However, if it is left to the states, then all 50 do not have to be pro-life, just because 9 guys say so.

[NewEnd]

I know this wasn't directed at me, but I'd like to answer anyway :)

The idea that we should all be one community and not be divided.
That we should have actual debates about positions and policies.
That government should be transparent and accountable to the people.
That Iraq was wrong and we should have never gone in.

I honestly think that eventually in the future we will all be one big happy society, helping each other and using our resources for common good. But we're not in that world yet, and this government has no chance to get us there. Obama represents what government SHOULD be (to a "socialist" like myself), not what government IS. Sadly, he can't turn it around by himself. I still think that he'll be a great president in 8 years after Dr. Paul is done. He can continue with his ideas of government, but only after we clean house for a while.

Me too. I honestly think the style of economic management is irrelevant, peopel will find ways to make money. I think the real question is, the character of the peopel in power. Obama has not proven he is trustworthy to me. He talks the talk, but he has little record to be scrutinized.

[bricklayer]

<---- converted apathetic

i think i'm an INTP, which to me means, i like it when people appeal to principles. ron paul is the first candidate i've seen who is principled, and doesn't pander. i love it. he makes me understand what being a republican means, and proud to be one.

[tomveil]

Me too. I honestly think the style of economic management is irrelevant, peopel will find ways to make money. I think the real question is, the character of the peopel in power. Obama has not proven he is trustworthy to me. He talks the talk, but he has little record to be scrutinized.


Which is why he seems like the perfect VP choice for me (since I'm biased). In 8 years, he'd come out WITH experience AND a record. I know it sounds crazy, but there's 0% chance that Hillary beats a Paul/Obama ticket.

[NewEnd]

Which is why he seems like the perfect VP choice for me (since I'm biased). In 8 years, he'd come out WITH experience AND a record. I know it sounds crazy, but there's 0% chance that Hillary beats a Paul/Obama ticket.

the only way this would happen, would be if Hilary started a ruthless, cut-throat campaign, that sewed so much bad blood, Obama would be willing to defect. My dollar is on, he takes the whipping, and saves it up for another time, as he is advised to do by the DNC.

But it would be trouble, because Obama would probably want to be president. It sounds like a pipe dream.

[tomveil]

the only way this would happen, would be if Hilary started a ruthless, cut-throat campaign, that sewed so much bad blood, Obama would be willing to defect. My dollar is on, he takes the whipping, and saves it up for another time, as he is advised to do by the DNC.

But it would be trouble, because Obama would probably want to be president. It sounds like a pipe dream.

I agree. I imagine the "perfect storm" in which Ron Paul comes in a suprising 3rd/2nd combo while Hillary runs over both states with very sizable margins. Obama is suddenly out of it, and Paul needs a bump. They get together and talk about it. I get the feeling that both would put the country ahead of party if they were able to talk together. Besides, the VP spot is a lock to step up in 8 years for Obama.

And honestly they do have things in common. Transparency and accountablility in government is a very key part of both of their strategies. Obama could get in, work hard, and make sure that his social programs that he wants are running efficently while Dr. Paul takes care of the foriegn policy mess.

There's nothing saying that a Republican and Democrat can't run together. In this particular year, it could help them both tremendously. Oh, and the "racist" label gets shot down pretty quick too, doesn't it? ;)

[NewEnd]

I agree. I imagine the "perfect storm" in which Ron Paul comes in a suprising 3rd/2nd combo while Hillary runs over both states with very sizable margins. Obama is suddenly out of it, and Paul needs a bump. They get together and talk about it. I get the feeling that both would put the country ahead of party if they were able to talk together. Besides, the VP spot is a lock to step up in 8 years for Obama.

And honestly they do have things in common. Transparency and accountablility in government is a very key part of both of their strategies. Obama could get in, work hard, and make sure that his social programs that he wants are running efficently while Dr. Paul takes care of the foriegn policy mess.

There's nothing saying that a Republican and Democrat can't run together. In this particular year, it could help them both tremendously. Oh, and the "racist" label gets shot down pretty quick too, doesn't it? ;)

No, if Hillary stomps Obama, the campaign will not get too dirty. What would need to happen, is Obama would need to threaten Hillary, and then she would start to fight dirty. It would take some reeealll dirty fighting to make Obama defect... like impossibly dirty.

its a dream ticket that just would not happen.

[tomveil]

No, if Hillary stomps Obama, the campaign will not get too dirty. What would need to happen, is Obama would need to threaten Hillary, and then she would start to fight dirty. It would take some reeealll dirty fighting to make Obama defect... like impossibly dirty.

its a dream ticket that just would not happen.

I dunno, I don't see it as a defection. He's got a chance to implement changes that he believes in, and it's a chance to prove to the American People that he can Reach Across The Isle And Work With The Other Side To Promote The Well Being Of The Country. (words capsed because that's how he would say it)

Besides, it's better to have a say in policy than to not, right? You'd have to be silly to turn down a position where you could Make A Difference.

I think he could spin it into a positive. Although honestly I think the race is going to be way too close for this to happen. He's going to give her a run (and hopefully win). Even if he loses out, it'd probably be too late to help Paul in the primaries where you could make a difference.

[jcasper]

<-------- Converted Democrat/Apathetic

[WilliamC]

<begin humor>

You all make me want to french-kiss my computer screen!

</end humor>

[jcasper]

Ron paul really does bring out the LOVE in revolution evenly the manly love

[tomveil]

I shuddered when I heard that. And then I just stared in shock at the screen through the most awkward 17 hours of dead air time ever.

[Yom]

Converted Dem here, too, but unless there's a major shift in the mainstream Republican party's policy, it's likely only for a few Libertarian-leaning Republican ("Ron Paul Republicans" as they say nowadays) candidates.



Oh, and Obama would never be on RP's ticket if he won the Republican nomination, even if he won by a landslide. The RNC would never choose Obama, even if that's who Ron Paul said he wanted as his VP. Remember that ultimately it's the convention that decides (!) who is their nominee for both President and Vice President. It's just the tradition to give the nominee the VP he asks for.

[tomveil]

Converted Dem here, too, but unless there's a major shift in the mainstream Republican party's policy, it's likely only for a few Libertarian-leaning Republican ("Ron Paul Republicans" as they say nowadays) candidates.



Oh, and Obama would never be on RP's ticket if he won the Republican nomination, even if he won by a landslide. The RNC would never choose Obama, even if that's who Ron Paul said he wanted as his VP. Remember that ultimately it's the convention that decides (!) who is their nominee for both President and Vice President. It's just the tradition to give the nominee the VP he asks for.

Agree with that :)

And didn't know about the 2nd part. That's a shame.

[Antonius Stone]

I WAS a democrat, but really when i analyze my ideology, i've really always been a left-leaning libertarian. Environmental-Libertarian, if you will...

[kutibah]

<--- converted democrat

[MN Patriot]

I've tried hard to understand how Democrats think. It seems they place little value on a person's wealth, or maybe a better term would be have little respect for a person's wealth. On one hand, they condemn the super-wealthy, and want government to redistribute wealth. But when it comes to becoming wealthy, there seems to be few ideas from the Democrats about how to promote prosperity among the poor. One solution is wealth distribution. Another is "jobs", but to have jobs, you need business owners.

It seems to me that Democrats simply don't take into consideration how the economy works. People need incentives, wealth doesn't happen by itself, it takes human action to create it. What does it take to convince a Democrat/liberal that a free market environment works better than a socialist economic environment?

[tomveil]

I've tried hard to understand how Democrats think. It seems they place little value on a person's wealth, or maybe a better term would be have little respect for a person's wealth. On one hand, they condemn the super-wealthy, and want government to redistribute wealth. But when it comes to becoming wealthy, there seems to be few ideas from the Democrats about how to promote prosperity among the poor. One solution is wealth distribution. Another is "jobs", but to have jobs, you need business owners.

It seems to me that Democrats simply don't take into consideration how the economy works. People need incentives, wealth doesn't happen by itself, it takes human action to create it. What does it take to convince a Democrat/liberal that a free market environment works better than a socialist economic environment?

As one, you have to convince me that the government is so bad that I'll try anything once.

That's it.

[DeepBlu]

Another converted Democrat here.

[GJ-CO4RonPaul]

<----- Converted Apathy

[hawks4ronpaul]

People need incentives,

Enter coercion, the "incentive" to do the illogical.


http://hawks4ronpaul.blogspot.com/

[Adamsa]

I'd prefer hardcore Republicans convert, that is even more inspiring.

Good to see people jumping on board!

[Brian in Maryland]

<--- converted nominal republican

Actually not a convert, have had the views that Dr. Paul espouses for at least 15 years, just never thought anyone like him would come along.