I agree completely with Ron Paul

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

I suggest we don't read their/her posts any more and don't attempt to respond to them. If they don't have an audience for the insane hatred they spew, maybe they will go away. There's no point, anyway. As in my post below, if I hold up three fingers and YOU see three fingers and the rest of the WORLD sees three fingers, they will only see ONE finger, turn it into something ugly and hateful and then and accuse me of giving them the bird. How in the world can someone communicate with people like that?

I say we just start to ignore them before they pollute this board any further than they already have. It's getting out of control.

They're turning the Liberal board into a sewer like they did the Conservative board.

This person either didn't even watch the clip and is completely unaware of Phelps and his "activities" or simply silently condones the heinous things he does. I particularly despise Phelps' uninvited attendance at the funerals of American soldiers and his "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" motto.

I would be this person posted himself/herself blue to blast Rev. Wright, but this Phelps moron is okay.

I plan to vote for Barack Obama (bash him if you want - I cannot be swayed!), but I checked out Ron Paul's website awhile back, and it seems like he has a pretty great record. I wouldn't mind if he got elected. I think both Obama and Paul seem to have one great quality in common - integrity!! People can call me foolish if they want, but I go with my gut feeling a lot through life (serving me well so far), and I have a good feeling about both of these men. They seem like decent, honest men - well, honest for politicians at least. :)

I like Obama because he talks about the things that mean the most to my family, and I really think he has what it takes to bring our divided nation back together somewhat, but if a Republican makes it to office, I hope it's Paul.

candidate or just a wasted vote? I'm not liking neither Obama nor McCain at this point, and I've been researching Ron Paul a little bit. I don't know that I'm leaning towards him, just curious if he has a viable chance in this election.

It seems worthless to vote for someone you know won't get enough of the votes to actually win the thing. Any thoughts? Does Ron Paul have enough supporters to get voted in?

Largely unappreciated and attacked by his own Party Congressman Ron Paul has, in fact, done a great service to the Republican Party this election season. Paul enlarged the Republican �tent� to again include disaffected core Republicans, Independents and real Conservatives who have been forced outside that �tent� in the last two decades.

Paul uses classic Republican language to defend that point of view which demands small-government, constitutionally-oriented, fiscally-responsible and true free-market adherents actually be recognized and accommodated, rather than just paying lip-service to those positions.

Most importantly, that message has motivated a generation of young people to join the Party who are technically savvy, constitutionally-smart and extremely enthusiastic about spreading the message of freedom, liberty and free markets. They have been inspired by a candidate who really understands and believes in a Republic and, one would think, be embraced by incumbent Republican Party members.

However that, it seems, is not the case. Too many existing Republicans do not understand the language of those positions any more and can�t speak it in public. It also seems the NeoCon members are intent on forcing out of the party the very people that represent its future. I urge my Republican brothers and sisters to reject such collectivist, herd mentality which is indicative of Democrats while being logically and historically repugnant to Republicans.

In the 1960s and 70s that same �insurgent� group within the party was represented by Goldwater/Ronald Reagan conservatives. For those of you who don�t remember, the �Reaganites� were ostracized and isolated throughout that period right up to the 1980 election, when they were fully embraced. That is why in March of 1980, even former President Gerald Ford was still quoted as saying, �.....the Man is unelectable,� seven months before Reagan was elected President. It is worth noting that Congressman Paul was one of only 4 Congressman who endorsed Reagan in 1976.

However, the Goldwater/Reaganites were never treated as badly as the Paulites have been this season. The NeoCon/establishment faction within the Party has diligently worked to eliminate all true vestiges of the real Reagan Revolution from the party, as exampled by their behavior this election season. They have but one thought: Power and control at any cost. Yet, the record shows they keep losing running against historic principles of the Party.

They are attempting to make stillborn the Paul movement. Why? Because we are strong supporters of the original values of the Party? My friends, we are being weakened further by the poor leadership of that NeoCon faction and its adherents. Check the record.

The results since 2004 have been abysmal. In Colorado, while having a 200,000-vote advantage of registered Republicans over Democrats, we have lost the State Senate and the House, the Governor�s mansion, the Treasurer�s seat and two Congressional seats.

Nationally, we already have lost the US House and Senate and it is nearly a foregone conclusion we will lose 25-30 more House seats and 6-9 Senate seats in November.

In early tests, we have already lost seats in Illinois, Louisiana and Mississippi. Seats that Republicans have held for decades. The damage is mounting. We are CONTINUING to lose Governor�s seats left and right. The Democrats are out-raising us in funding $3 and $4 to one (in Congress $6 to $1) as noted recently by Republican Congressional leaders. The leadership should be forced to explain where it is that we have a winning strategy in constantly compromising our historic principles rather than firmly re-establishing them each generation? That is what the Founders taught.

From McKinley to Taft to Goldwater to Reagan, this Party used to promote and celebrate the core Republican message and historical principles of the Party. That seems to be all but banished from the party, except to pay it lip service. The result of that banishment are, and will be, clearly evident in the election results this November and after. If establishment Republicans persist in ostracizing and obstructing every attempt for the classic Republican message to have a voice in the Party, than who are Republicans, really? I did not spend the last 33 years as a conservative to start voting for liberals. Please join me today in supporting and promoting what should be the real message of the Republican Party in 2008 and beyond. Send the message to the Party leadership that we no longer support any further erosion of this party�s principles! Don�t allow them to keep rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Regardless of whether or not you would ultimately have voted for Congressman Paul, every Republican should have respected the message. That was the Republican way for the first 140 years of this party. At this point, even if he wins, John McCain will likely be another Millard Fillmore presiding over the complete demise of the Whig Party from 1850-54.

This is why the powers that be behind the scenes made sure Ron Paul didn't get proper media coverage and couldn't get his message out there........too many agendas in governments around the world. We do need to keep our butts out of this......no matter what happens, the middle east will always and has always been fighting. Surely the U.S. doesn't think WE will be able to suddenly stop all that. All we are doing is making matters worse by taking sides at this point. If Israel feels the need to counter attack or invade the gaza strip, regardless, we need to stay out of it. Let them do what they need to do and we need to stay out.

Ron Paul has been so right all along. We just keep throwing more and more money, printing more money, just wasted, all of it! Government is not supposed to be in the business of economic planning for this country....that's not a free society! Government has NEVER done ANYTHING worthwhile with our money other than blow it............they have no business in the private sector.

All the CEOs they sit up there and grill....what have they found out? Nothing....and they never will. Government can't get anything right.

didn't vote for him, but if he had been treated more fairly, my opinions may have changed. As of now, they're beginning to change.

There are a lot of things the federal government have no business sticking their noses into. Last time I heard, Ron Paul had nailed most of them down.

Since I'm beginning to become disillusioned with both the Republican and Democratic parties, I just may vote for Paul (if he's still running) during the next election.

George W. Bush, I once wrote, values loyalty above expertise and may have a preference for advisers whose personal fortunes are almost entirely bound up with his own. And he likes to surround himself with obsequious courtiers.

Lots of people are saying things like that these days. But those quotes are from a column published on Nov. 19, 2000.

I don't believe that I'm any better than the average person at judging other people's character. I got it right because I said those things in the context of a discussion of Mr. Bush's choice of economic advisers, a subject in which I do have some expertise.

But many people in the news media do claim, at least implicitly, to be experts at discerning character - and their judgments play a large, sometimes decisive role in our political life. The 2000 election would have ended in a chad-proof victory for Al Gore if many reporters hadn't taken a dislike to Mr. Gore, while portraying Mr. Bush as an honest, likable guy. The 2004 election was largely decided by the image of Mr. Bush as a strong, effective leader.

Right now, with the Bush administration in meltdown on multiple issues, we're hearing a lot about President Bush's personal failings. But what happened to the commanding figure of yore, the heroic leader in the war on terror? The answer, of course, is that the commanding figure never existed: Mr. Bush is the same man he always was. All the character flaws that are now fodder for late-night humor were fully visible, for those willing to see them, during the 2000 campaign.

And President Bush the great leader is far from the only fictional character, bearing no resemblance to the real man, created by media images.

Read the speeches Howard Dean gave before the Iraq war, and compare them with Colin Powell's pro-war presentation to the U.N. Knowing what we know now, it's clear that one man was judicious and realistic, while the other was spinning crazy conspiracy theories. But somehow their labels got switched in the way they were presented to the public by the news media.

Why does this happen? A large part of the answer is that the news business places great weight on up close and personal interviews with important people, largely because they're hard to get but also because they play well with the public. But such interviews are rarely revealing. The fact is that most people - myself included - are pretty bad at using personal impressions to judge character. Psychologists find, for example, that most people do little better than chance in distinguishing liars from truth-tellers.

More broadly, the big problem with political reporting based on character portraits is that there are no rules, no way for a reporter to be proved wrong. If a reporter tells you about the steely resolve of a politician who turns out to be ineffectual and unwilling to make hard choices, you've been misled, but not in a way that requires a formal correction.

And that makes it all too easy for coverage to be shaped by what reporters feel they can safely say, rather than what they actually think or know. Now that Mr. Bush's approval ratings are in the 30's, we're hearing about his coldness and bad temper, about how aides are afraid to tell him bad news. Does anyone think that journalists have only just discovered these personal characteristics?

Let's be frank: the Bush administration has made brilliant use of journalistic careerism. Those who wrote puff pieces about Mr. Bush and those around him have been rewarded with career-boosting access. Those who raised questions about his character found themselves under personal attack from the administration's proxies. (Yes, I'm speaking in part from experience.) Only now, with Mr. Bush in desperate trouble, has the structure of rewards shifted.

So what's the answer? Journalists who are better at judging character? Unfortunately, that's not a practical plan. After all, who judges their judgment?

What we really need is political journalism based less on perceptions of personalities and more on actual facts. Schadenfreude aside, we should not be happy that stories about Mr. Bush's boldness have given way to stories analyzing his facial tics. Think, instead, about how different the world would be today if, during the 2000 campaign, reporting had focused on the candidates' fiscal policies instead of their wardrobes.

I agree completely with Ron Paul

Ron Paul has performed a great service for the Republican Party