CBS Labels Ron Paul a "Meaningless Fruitcake" With "No Chance" Of Winning

[pisshead]

wow, the establishment is frightened of ron paul, probably more than any other candidate that's threatened their new world order...

CBS Labels Ron Paul a "Meaningless Fruitcake" With "No Chance" Of Winning
Kevin Drum channels South Park's Officer Barbrady: "Nothing to see here folks. Move along..."
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet (http://prisonplanet.com/index.html)
Wednesday, November 7, 2007

Despite a general begrudging acceptance amongst a large swathe of the corporate media that Ron Paul is a real contender for the Republican nomination following the hugely successful November 5th "money bomb" campaign, a CBS News op-ed piece today labels the Texas Congressman a "meaningless" "fruitcake" with "no chance" of winning.
The article is entitled Ron Paul, Fruitcake (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/06/politics/animal/main3459836.shtml) and its writer, Kevin Drum, attempts to make the point that anyone who even expresses an interest in the Congressman's campaign is a "political infant" who needs to "grow up".
In reality, it's Drum who needs to grow up - his four paragraph whine reads like the literary equivalent of a baby throwing its toys out of a playpen.
(Article continues below)





"Ron Paul raised a buttload of money yesterday. This doesn't really change anything, and everyone knows it, but I guess it's something to write about. So people are writing about it," seethes Drum.




"But look: can we stop pretending to be political infants, even if we happen to be bored this week? It's cheap and easy to take extreme, uncompromising positions when you have no actual chance of ever putting them into practice, so Paul's extreme, uncompromising positions really don't mean a thing," writes Drum.
"They're meaningless, and I wish grown adults who know better would stop pretending otherwise."
"Seriously, folks. Can we all please grow up?" he concludes.
The words of Officer Barbrady from South Park come to mind - "Nothing to see here folks. Move along..."
On what foundation does Drum claim that Congressman Paul's campaign is irrelevant? His growth curve and fundraising is outstripping any other candidate from either party and bookmakers are slashing his odds of winning the Republican nomination left, right and center.
Granted, the average geriatric Giuliani supporter cited in telephone surveys is going to keep Paul's poll digits low, but the fact that he routinely trounces the opposition in TV and Internet polls and has been widely lauded for shaking up the debates is hardly "meaningless" as Drum claims.
What's really happening here is that, whether wittingly or unwittingly, the establishment minions are terrified that their perch on the peanut gallery can be so forcefully undermined by a grass roots rebellion against the stranglehold of the elite - who carefully screen presidential candidates year after year - ensuring only establishment lackeys ever have a chance of winning.
What the Ron Paul Revolution has created is bigger than whether or not Ron Paul will win the nomination in 2008.
This is about setting a benchmark and getting a foothold in an otherwise stage-managed and contrived electoral process, and having a candidate of the people front and center who the corporate media cannot possibly ignore.
In that sense, the Ron Paul phenomenon is far from "meaningless" and Kevin Drum is the one who needs to "grow up", for his political infancy betrays a complete ignorance of what is taking place.
In addition, if Ron Paul is so "meaningless" then why is Drum, along with an army of other establishment media stooges and Neo-Con cult members, wasting his time in attacking the Congressman?
In the words of William Shakespeare, Methinks this CBS hack doth protest too much.

[pisshead]

Ron Paul, CBS, and the Fed, as in Federal Express (http://www.truthnews.us/?p=713)



Kurt Nimmo (http://truthnews.us/)
TruthNews

November 7, 2007Kevin Drum (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/06/politics/animal/main3459836.shtml), adult, has it out for Ron Paul:
Ron Paul raised a buttload of money yesterday. This doesnâ??t really change anything, and everyone knows it, but I guess itâ??s something to write about. So people are writing about it.

No kidding. Drum used this nounâ??if it rates as a noun: â??buttload.â?� And Mr. Drum is considered a columnist over at CBS. Drum pretends Ron Paulâ??s remarkable ability to raise millions of dollars for his presidential campaign â??doesnâ??t really change anything.â?� In other words, no matter what Paul does, Drum will dismiss it because â??Paulâ??s extreme, uncompromising positions really donâ??t mean a thing.â?� Letâ??s allow Drum to amplify:
They donâ??t reflect either well or badly on him. Theyâ??re meaningless, and I wish grown adults who know better would stop pretending otherwise. Ditto for his â??record breakingâ?� fundraising day, which is just a function of (a) the growth of the internet as a political money machine and (b) the curious but well-known fact that technophiles are disproportionately libertarian.

In other words, libertarians, a number of them â??technophilesâ?� (i.e., they like computers and iPods, I suppose), are â??infants,â?� they really donâ??t count, and the adults, like Drum, will vote for Hillary or Mitt or the sincerely scary neocon Rudy. Adults buy the same old crap every election cycle. Adults are authoritarians and libertarians are kids playing with toys.
But I will say this: if Ron Paul really is suddenly a â??seriousâ?� candidate, then I expect him to start getting some pointed questions at the next debate. In the last Republican debate I saw, this noted truth-teller gave a strange and convoluted answer about his economic policies that the audience plainly didnâ??t understand. Next time I expect to see some straight talk about how we should return to the gold standard and get rid of the Fed. This should be followed by a question about whether he supports the free coinage of silver at 16:1. Then some questions about the tin trust.
Obviously, the man has a â??buttloadâ?� of ignorance to spare. But then that puts him up there unfortunately with the vast majority of the American public. It is not Ron Paulâ??s fault â??the audience plainly didnâ??t understandâ?� that the Federal Reserve is about as federal as Federal Express, that is to say it is a private central bank.
Mr. Drum, it should be easy to understand, even for the average American adult: the paper money issued by the Federal Reserve is fiat money, that is to say it is based on nothing, not on gold or, yes indeed, tin. Because it is based on a â??buttloadâ?� of nothingâ??please excuse the plagiarismâ??there is no restraint on how much of it can be cranked out by Federal Reserveâ??as in Federal Express or Federal Plumbing. Because of this the non-federal banks associated with the non-federal reserve can create an unlimited, sky-is-the-limit amount of credit. But the more money that is printed the less valuable it becomes. Because it is based on nothingâ??not gold, not tin, not peanut shells, nothing of substance.
It really is not all that difficult to understand, Mr. Drum. Even an adult sitting pretty at a â??debateâ?� or â??town hall meetingâ?� should be able to understand.
Our money is not based on anything of substance. It is based on confidenceâ??and once that confidence is gone, you have big problems.
In the beginning, it is called inflationâ??and then its called hyper-inflation.
Remember those pictures of German adults with wheelbarrows stacked with Deutsche Marks going to market to buy a loaf of bread for their kids? Thatâ??s where we are heading, Mr. Drum, and you may wish to poke a â??buttloadâ?� of fun at Ron Paul, who believes in sound monetary policy, and call him an â??infant,â?� and dismiss his supporters as technophiles and internet navel-gazers, but that will not stop the fact we are headed for disaster, due mostly to funny money printed by bankers no more federal than Federal Dry Cleaning.
But then you work for CBS News, so your attitude is quite understandable. CBS, of course, was founded by William Paley, who worked closely with the CIA to turn corporate media into a government propaganda leviathan. Paleyâ??s no longer with us but his effort works like a dream as corporate media and government propaganda are pretty much indistinguishable these days. In fact, one can fairly say the corporate media is the official propaganda wing of the government.
Ron Paul would naturally put an end to all that nonsense.
And no doubt that is of concern for corporate adults such as yourself, Mr. Drum.
I mean, youâ??d have to find real work, wouldnâ??t you?
And a job where using the word â??buttloadâ?� as a noun in a supposedly serious and professional venue would not likely be looked upon as real work.

[pisshead]

wow, so now the constitution is a terrorist document...i suppose we need a dictatorship to keep us safe from the terrorists, or the terrorists win...

Media Infers Ron Paul Is A Terrorist
November 5th "Money Bomb" gimmick heavily played up by terrified establishment and goblin neocon bloggers

Steve Watson
Infowars.net (http://infowars.net/index.html)
Tuesday, Nov 5, 2007

Having been forced to report on Ron Paul's record breaking donation drive yesterday, mainstream outlets seized the opportunity to emphasize the Guy Fawkes gimmick, that was used by grassroots organizers to draw attention to Paul's campaign, as a way of tacitly suggesting that the Congressman's message of freedom and limited government is synonymous with terrorism and anarchy.
A grassroots campaign unaffiliated with the official Paul campaign was the catalyst for a huge $4.2 million cash infusion yesterday, putting the campaign well on course to raise $12 million by the end of the quarter and bringing Paul close to being the top fundraiser among the Republican candidates.
The Following headlines, however, chose not to lead with this information and instead to firstly draw attention to the November 5th theme:
Ron Paul Raises $3.68 Million on Guy Fawkes Day (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/06/us/politics/06paul.html?ref=us) - NY Times
Financial Fireworks for Texas Republican Presidential Candidate (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/11/financial-firew.html) - Wired
A penny for the guy, a hundred bucks for Ron Paul (http://blogs.cnet.com/8301-13512_1-9811210-23.html) - CNet
"Historians and British schoolchildren remember Guy Fawkes as the Roman Catholic, anti-Protestant rebel who on Nov. 5, 1605, tried to assassinate King James I by blowing up the Parliament. Supporters of the Republican primary campaign of the libertarian Representative Ron Paul may remember Fawkes as a wildly successful fund-raising gimmick", writes the NY Times.
(Article continues below)


"On Monday, a group of Paul supporters helped raised more than $4.07 million in one day â?? approaching what the campaign raised in the entire last quarter â?? through a Web site called ThisNovember5th.com, a reference to the day the British commemorate the thwarted bombing." continues the article in the first two paragraphs.
More of this kind of stuff comes from CNN. In the following clip from Wolf Blitzer's show, the anchor wastes little time in tying the Ron Paul fundraising campaign to the gunpowder plot to "blow up the Houses of Parliament," despite the fact that the date was patently chosen as a gimmick to make people remember to donate and has nothing to do with 400-year old British history:


Rolling Stone magazine (http://www.rollingstone.com/nationalaffairs/index.php/2007/11/06/ron-pauls-42-million-haul/%20) went one better, explicitly linking the Congressman's cash infusion with terror and anarchy:
"I donâ??t know whatâ??s more amazing â?? the sum total. Or the fact that this Republican fund-raising surge this is all somehow in honor of terrorist, er, anarchist, er, V-For-Vendetta antihero Guy Fawkes."

The article has drawn huge swathes of attention from angry Ron Paul supporters at pains to point out that Ron Paul's endorsement of a strong free market and limited government and is the very antithesis of anarchism, it is what is directly written in the Constitution of the United States, it literally is law and order.
"We donâ??t want anarchy, we want The Constitution. Itâ??s not something new, it is the law of the land. Do you get your talking points from Bill Oâ??reilly?", writes one commenter.
The spin used here is astounding, clearly disgruntled by having to admit Ron Paul now must be considered a top tier candidate, and terrified of the Congressman's growing success, the establishment and others cannot merely report the fact that Ron Paul has raised record breaking millions via somewhere in the region of 35,000 individual donations.
Instead they spin this incredible display of grassroots organization knowing that the neocon blogs will run wild with it, now they can no longer declare Ron Paul's widespread support to be the work of "spambots (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2007/061107_spam_bots.htm)".
And as expected the first set of twisted reality denying neocon goblins to disseminate their poison was once again, the Michelle Malkin worshipping dirt-sniffers over at Hot Air (please don't visit their filth den, it only encourages them), who went with the "could it be any more yellow?" headline Ron and the Paulbots celebrate a terrorist by raising $3.5 mil.

We keep returning to this key quote but in this instance it's meaning is even more relevant:
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."



- Mahatma Gandhi.

Meanwhile, others, while having to now admit Paul is a top tier candidate, have attempted to spin the amazing outpouring of support for Ron Paul as an indication of great "alienation" in America. The Baltimore Sun (http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2007/11/ron_pauls_money_bomb_records_a.html) writes:
That so many people have invested so much in someone who stands such little apparent chance of winning his partyâ??s presidential nomination, let alone the White House, speaks volumes about alienation in modern American politics.


It is the same alienation that once handed H. Ross Perot close to 20 percent of the presidential vote. It is the same alienation that handed Ralph Nader just enough of the vote to deny Democrat Al Gore an Electoral College victory to accompany his popular-vote majority.
Though they still underplay Ron Paul's chances, in many ways the Sun is correct. What we are seeing is about more than Ron Paul. We are witnessing an awakening, Ron Paul is just one man, along with a growing movement of truth seekers, who have been continually prodding a sleeping giant.
The November 5th infusion shows that the people have power and the idea we don't is an illusion. The old line establishment media is in crisis, their popularity is dwindling and they have to act like movements generated by internet organisation do not equate to real people. More and more people are realizing that they can inject themselves into real issues and that there is great hope as long as there is still a willingness to effect change.

[the image reaper]

agreed, he is a 'meaningless candidate' ... it doesn't mean he couldn't be a good President, but he is irrelevant at this time ... :smokin:

[epxroot]

agreed, he is a 'meaningless candidate' ... it doesn't mean he couldn't be a good President, but he is irrelevant at this time ... :smokin:

My, the mentality of people amaze me at times! How is it people still think he is a "meaningless candidate"? He raised more money in a single day than any republican, he also raised more money online than any republican.He continues to dominate in the txt and straw polls. None of this came from corporate interest or lobbyist. It all came from average people and small businesses who believe something is very wrong with this country and want to make a change. Out of all the people who donated on the 5th only about 2% maxed out that leaves a lot of room for more donations. What makes him so popular is people believe what he says. He speaks his mind and is not just some image of a politician! DO NOT buy into what MSM is telling you about it. Do your research on him and make your own opinion!!

[smartin.2006]

I agree with epxroot!:cool:

[mfqr]

My, the mentality of people amaze me at times! How is it people still think he is a "meaningless candidate"? He raised more money in a single day than any republican, he also raised more money online than any republican.He continues to dominate in the txt and straw polls. None of this came from corporate interest or lobbyist. It all came from average people and small businesses who believe something is very wrong with this country and want to make a change. Out of all the people who donated on the 5th only about 2% maxed out that leaves a lot of room for more donations. What makes him so popular is people believe what he says. He speaks his mind and is not just some image of a politician! DO NOT buy into what MSM is telling you about it. Do your research on him and make your own opinion!!

Word up!

It's all just political propaganda. Certain people have invested in certain interests, and thus want certain people to win the elections.

[Psycho4Bud]

It all came from average people and small businesses who believe something is very wrong with this country and want to make a change.

If you call the blind followers of Alex Jones and the other radicals from the "Truth Movement" as average........LOL, have at it. I really don't think that the GOP has the same opinion as you do on this one and in the end....they will have final say.

Have a good one!:s4:

[Krogith]

IMO he could win !00% of the peoples vote and still would loose the electoral college Vote.

[epxroot]

If you call the blind followers of Alex Jones and the other radicals from the "Truth Movement" as average........LOL, have at it. I really don't think that the GOP has the same opinion as you do on this one and in the end....they will have final say.

Have a good one!:s4:

I am always amused by people who downplay Ron Paul supporters by associating them with Alex Jones. You're just as bad as the Ron Paul spamers who flood the internet. The part where you're wrong at is it is not just Alex Jones supporters following him my friend. There are no typical Ron Paul followers because they are from all races, religions, political party's, age, and so on! I am sure you have formed you low opinion by watching the MSM, or have you actually attended a rally, or actually looked into him for yourself? There has already been a lot of work towards getting delegates for the primary's who support Ron Paul, and the progress is going well. The movement is growing by leaps and bounds.

[Psycho4Bud]

I am always amused by people who downplay Ron Paul supporters by associating them with Alex Jones. You're just as bad as the Ron Paul spamers who flood the internet. The part where you're wrong at is it is not just Alex Jones supporters following him my friend. There are no typical Ron Paul followers because they are from all races, religions, political party's, age, and so on! I am sure you have formed you low opinion by watching the MSM, or have you actually attended a rally, or actually looked into him for yourself? There has already been a lot of work towards getting delegates for the primary's who support Ron Paul, and the progress is going well. The movement is growing by leaps and bounds.

I've went to his web site and looked over his positions and I also watch all the debates on various networks. His comment on how we shouldn't have been involved in WW2 is what clinched it for me. If some asshat feels that it wasn't our place to be in Europe during that, he definately lost any and all support from me.

We all know what was happening in Europe during those times and the typical blind follower of A.J. has an anti-Semitic attitude that I find very disturbing.

Have a good one!:s4:

[epxroot]

I've went to his web site and looked over his positions and I also watch all the debates on various networks. His comment on how we shouldn't have been involved in WW2 is what clinched it for me. If some asshat feels that it wasn't our place to be in Europe during that, he definately lost any and all support from me.

We all know what was happening in Europe during those times and the typical blind follower of A.J. has an anti-Semitic attitude that I find very disturbing.

Have a good one!:s4:

After reading your reply I have been searching the web for these comments on WW2 from Ron Paul. If you could please provide a link to which you are referring to, or describe these comments. All I have ever heard Ron Paul say about WW2 is that it was â??the last war we entered constitutionallyâ?¦and the last war we actually won.â?�

Also "typical blind follower of A.J. has an anti-Semitic attitude" please explain.

[FlyGuyOU]

Near as I can tell before Pearl Harbor, our position was to stay out of Europe. We sent aid and money to the allies, but wouldn't commit troops. Churchill was begging us to get involved and the Russians to start a second front, England was dealing with the Battle of Brittan and London air raids but FDR wasn't going to send boys over.

[epxroot]

IMO he could win !00% of the peoples vote and still would loose the electoral college Vote.

Don't think that would go over to well with the American people.

[Ozarks]

Near as I can tell before Pearl Harbor, our position was to stay out of Europe.

That is one of Ron's mistakes, on December 7 1941 the "isolation wing" of the Republican party died, Ron Paul (and Pat Buchanan) just haven't realized yet.:D

[Psycho4Bud]

After reading your reply I have been searching the web for these comments on WW2 from Ron Paul. If you could please provide a link to which you are referring to, or describe these comments. All I have ever heard Ron Paul say about WW2 is that it was â??the last war we entered constitutionallyâ?¦and the last war we actually won.â?�

Also "typical blind follower of A.J. has an anti-Semitic attitude" please explain.

Like I stated, it was during one of the debates. I suppose, if I get the time, I'll try to go through some transcripts and find it.

I think his major problem was that we decided to quit trade with Japan and also supply Great Britain with material. THAT is taking sides during a conflict that was "none of our business" in his eyes. But since things developed to the point of an act of war being declared by Congress........THEN it's o.k.. Never mind the fact of the genocide happening in Germany with the Jews or the actions of Japan in China/Korea. The Presidents main position is the Commander in Chief of our armed forces and to use them in a manner to protect our interests. I don't feel that he has a clue as to how to handle the job.

Next.....good ol' A.J. I defy you to find ANYTHING pro Israel on his site. Here's the title of one of his current main stories; "The "Wipe Israel Off The Map" Hoax"........shows pics of a smiling Iranian President and a bunch of crap on how poor Iran is being picked on. To bad that a vast majority of the countries of the world basically condemned Iran for the statements. I guess ol' A.J.s interpretor is far superior than the ones in France, Germany, Denmark, Italy, and the U.S. just to name a few.

I can also make this statement based on my actions moderating this forum. Seems that quite a few of the 9-11 crowd have a real hard on about Israel. I can recall warnings issued about the hate not to mention the ban list in here speaks for itself.....in "real life" I'd expect to find a bald headed punk with a swastika tattood on his neck.

On the side.......I'll try to find that quote of his regarding WW2 but it may take some time.

Have a good one!:s4:

[epxroot]

Like I stated, it was during one of the debates. I suppose, if I get the time, I'll try to go through some transcripts and find it.

I think his major problem was that we decided to quit trade with Japan and also supply Great Britain with material. THAT is taking sides during a conflict that was "none of our business" in his eyes. But since things developed to the point of an act of war being declared by Congress........THEN it's o.k.. Never mind the fact of the genocide happening in Germany with the Jews or the actions of Japan in China/Korea. The Presidents main position is the Commander in Chief of our armed forces and to use them in a manner to protect our interests. I don't feel that he has a clue as to how to handle the job.

Next.....good ol' A.J. I defy you to find ANYTHING pro Israel on his site. Here's the title of one of his current main stories; "The "Wipe Israel Off The Map" Hoax"........shows pics of a smiling Iranian President and a bunch of crap on how poor Iran is being picked on. To bad that a vast majority of the countries of the world basically condemned Iran for the statements. I guess ol' A.J.s interpretor is far superior than the ones in France, Germany, Denmark, Italy, and the U.S. just to name a few.

I can also make this statement based on my actions moderating this forum. Seems that quite a few of the 9-11 crowd have a real hard on about Israel. I can recall warnings issued about the hate not to mention the ban list in here speaks for itself.....in "real life" I'd expect to find a bald headed punk with a swastika tattood on his neck.

On the side.......I'll try to find that quote of his regarding WW2 but it may take some time.

Have a good one!:s4:

Ron Paul promotes free trade, and friends with all countries! I believe he is right about not interfering in with what was happening in Germany. The reason I say this is because I don't understand how we pick and choose who we help. They always talk about genocide and cruel leaders. I would say our support in WW2 help give rise to Stalin who killed at least 20M! Why did we not step in and stick up for those victims. Why don't we step in and help the victims that China is murdering by the thousands. We don't step in unless we can get a profitable gain, and then we are lead to believe that we are fighting to help the victims. Why is there undeniable proof of Zionist, American, and the Catholic church support for Hitler? I mean if he was as bad as we are told then why did we allow the support, and how can Israel suport the murder of its own people. I really could go on and on about this subject and post plenty of links to support my thoughts. If you really are interested in understanding how this world is ran I will be more than happy to lend a hand to anyone with questions.

On the AJ note I will agree with people on how obnoxious he can be, but you can't associate all listeners with a few bad eggs. I listen to AJ, but I am also careful on what he says. He can tend to really be dramatic about things. However he does bring a lot of things to think about to the surface. I do not support a Zionist Israel, and never will. Israel is more than capable of handling Iran all by there selves, so why do they need our help? I think we have helped them enough. I know that there is something wrong with this world, and I know it all stems from greed and power.

[thcbongman]

I've went to his web site and looked over his positions and I also watch all the debates on various networks. His comment on how we shouldn't have been involved in WW2 is what clinched it for me. If some asshat feels that it wasn't our place to be in Europe during that, he definately lost any and all support from me.

We all know what was happening in Europe during those times and the typical blind follower of A.J. has an anti-Semitic attitude that I find very disturbing.

Have a good one!:s4:

The difference between WW2 is we were attacked. Of course if we were attacked, we should be involved. Otherwise, we should not. USA should not police the world, or force policies upon other countries without a greater understanding of their culture.

Today we are the aggressor, just like Japan. Don't bring up 9/11, because no country declared war, it was performed by a terrorist organization bound to no nationality.

The reasons for the Iraq conflict is purely economical. Any attempts at justifying the Iraq war in any other reasoning is laughable. Freedom, Liberty, are you fucking kidding me? It's pure propaganda, let America kick some ass, and everyone will feel more manly is the rational of many of your views.

Don't mistaken me, I support staying in Iraq until the job is done, because it would be pointless to waste all this military spending without getting economical benefits in return.

Ron Paul's stance is we should become more isolationist, we should engage in free trade, but no war. If another country has a problem, let someone else save them. In the fragile state of this country, a few economic and political events will send this country on a slide. One positive is other countries have interests in America having a growing economy. What if the EU exceeds America economy one day? With Chinese investors starting to diversify from the dollar, how do you know that one day, they'd decide to dump them, like George Soros did for the baht in Thailand? He literally fucked them economically, and a likely scenario will happen to the US if we don't start to limit government spending, and concentrate on bring back production and manufacturing jobs back to the states. So much waste goes on in DC it's truly sickening.

Ron Paul is right on the message. Cut the damn pork.

[Psycho4Bud]

and I know it all stems from greed and power.

And hate...........

Have a good one!:s4:

[Psycho4Bud]

Today we are the aggressor, just like Japan. Don't bring up 9/11, because no country declared war, it was performed by a terrorist organization bound to no nationality.

I watched them on TV cheering in the streets........seems all the applause is gone for now. Granted they don't have a "country" but their main base was in Afghanistan. As far as Iraq is concerned.......I've debated that point enough, believe as you will.

In "real life", if a neighbor allows an asshole to sit in their yard and throw objects at your house while cursing ya out on a daily basis.......the neighbor is in shit knee deep with the law also.

Have a good one!:s4:

[VoidLivesOn]

Why would you want free trade though? To my understanding doesn't that mean alot of hard working people would lose jobs?

[Nailhead]

Like I stated, it was during one of the debates. I suppose, if I get the time, I'll try to go through some transcripts and find it.

I'm waiting too, but I'm guessing the reason you aren't posting it isn't because you can't find it, but because you miss-quoted Dr. Paul. If he really said what you suggest he said, I'm sure that clip would be all over the internet and wouldn't be hard to find at all. Maybe it was like the video where Giuliani accuses him of suggesting we invited the 9/11 attacks, when Paul didn't even say that, the moderator did lol.

But of course, if I am wrong, please post the video because I'd definitely be interested in seeing that. I know Ron Paul's biggest problem is that he doesn't talk like a typical politician, he is a straight shooter so it's easy for the media and other politicians to twist his words into saying something he never said at all. So by all means, let's see this video!

[Psycho4Bud]

I'm waiting too, but I'm guessing the reason you aren't posting it isn't because you can't find it

How many debates have there been? Going though all the transcripts will take time and this isn't really on my top 10 priority list.......I'll find it WHEN I get a chance.

Have a good one!:s4:

[the image reaper]

P4B, I, too have read the plank statements from Ron Paul, and besides wanting to take away my Social Security and Medicare, yes, he did blame us for WWII ... he's a nutcase ... OK, so he's a nutcase that wants to legalize pot ... big deal ... I'm not willing to piss away my country over the ability to smoke more pot, but it looks like plenty of people are ... :(

[epxroot]

P4B, I, too have read the plank statements from Ron Paul, and besides wanting to take away my Social Security and Medicare, yes, he did blame us for WWII ... he's a nutcase ... OK, so he's a nutcase that wants to legalize pot ... big deal ... I'm not willing to piss away my country over the ability to smoke more pot, but it looks like plenty of people are ... :(

The claims you make are just not true! He has never said anything about taking away your Social Security. He has said we can save money by cutting the money we spend on our Foreign Policy and take care of the people who need the social security, and giving the young women and men a chance to opt out of the program. I never understood why I was forced to pay into social security when it is my money! I should be able to invest it in anything I want. Medicare is noting but a drain on our government. Granted we can not just cut everyone off, but we can make it to where people have a way to afford insurance. Again I ask to show me where he has said the US is at fault for WW2.

[pisshead]

The claims you make are just not true! He has never said anything about taking away your Social Security. He has said we can save money by cutting the money we spend on our Foreign Policy and take care of the people who need the social security, and giving the young women and men a chance to opt out of the program. I never understood why I was forced to pay into social security when it is my money! I should be able to invest it in anything I want. Medicare is noting but a drain on our government. Granted we can not just cut everyone off, but we can make it to where people have a way to afford insurance. Again I ask to show me where he has said the US is at fault for WW2.

i certainly wish i didn't have to pay into it...i'd much rather have the money and invest it myself...

i'm a big boy, i don't need the feds stealing my money and telling me it's for my future...especially when i damn well know i'm never going to see any of it back...

socialism doesn't work.

[Psycho4Bud]

i certainly wish i didn't have to pay into it...i'd much rather have the money and invest it myself...

i'm a big boy, i don't need the feds stealing my money and telling me it's for my future...especially when i damn well know i'm never going to see any of it back...

socialism doesn't work.

You may be a "big boy" now but what happens if your investment collapses? Who takes care of the old man then? THEN you'd be screaming for help from the socialists.

And what about the people that never quite got to investing? More street people or more welfare to support them?

Have a good one!:s4:

[VoidLivesOn]

Why would you want free trade though? To my understanding doesn't that mean alot of hard working people would lose jobs?

[Psycho4Bud]

Why would you want free trade though? To my understanding doesn't that mean alot of hard working people would lose jobs?

Your right; there is a BIG difference between free trade and fair trade.

Have a good one!:s4:

[VoidLivesOn]

yeah see i understand his views are agreeable on alot of other things like constitutional values, and drug laws...but why the hell would you want people who LIVE here not to WORK here?thats the only reason why i'm not going to vote for him. i don't like the idea of free trade.

[Psycho4Bud]

yeah see i understand his views are agreeable on alot of other things like constitutional values, and drug laws...but why the hell would you want people who LIVE here not to WORK here?thats the only reason why i'm not going to vote for him. i don't like the idea of free trade.

We should be isolationalists on our military but open all of our doors to free trade. Doesn't make sense at all. I also don't care for his stance on abortion either.

The more I read on this dude it seems that there is alot more behind the mask. Imagine that, another dirty politician.......full of promises.

Have a good one!:s4:

[epxroot]

We should be isolationalists on our military but open all of our doors to free trade. Doesn't make sense at all. I also don't care for his stance on abortion either.

The more I read on this dude it seems that there is alot more behind the mask. Imagine that, another dirty politician.......full of promises.

Have a good one!:s4:

Ahaha, he is in no way an isolationist! Some are pro-life some are not. Ron is pro-life.

[Psycho4Bud]

Ron is pro-life.

Personally, I think it's the womans choice. That's my problem with his stance not to mention most of the candidates on the right.

Have a good one!:s4:

[Mohksha]

P4B, I, too have read the plank statements from Ron Paul, and besides wanting to take away my Social Security and Medicare, yes, he did blame us for WWII ... he's a nutcase ... OK, so he's a nutcase that wants to legalize pot ... big deal ... I'm not willing to piss away my country over the ability to smoke more pot, but it looks like plenty of people are ...

I think maybe you misunderstood some of his points. He doesn't want to take away Social Security. On the contrary, he thinks the only way to save it is to allow people to opt out of it if they don't want to be in the program. My money is being STOLEN from me and I will never see it again. He is merely giving the option of getting out. He wants to change the social health care system, not get rid of it. Medicare only produces more bureaucratic inefficiency. I don't remember where I heard it, but I think I remember him saying that he would establish some sort of tax credit... I don't remember exactly.

I also don't know what you are talking about with him saying we are responsible for WWII or that we shouldn't have gone in. I watch almost every debate with him in it and I have never heard that. He has been misquoted before, so if you heard that sentence from anywhere but Ron Paul's mouth, that's probably the case. I do agree though with the pot thing. Not that I think that is the case with the Ron Paul movement, but I have met idiots like that before, too. Don't stereotype. I think stereotypes and expecting that people will act a certain way has caused most of the world's griefs throughout the millennium. Don't be a collectivist; everyone is an individual.

[VoidLivesOn]

how come no one will dabble in the free trade topic? it seems like people who support him are ignoring the fact that free trade means people losing jobs. am i right or wrong? please explain.

[thcbongman]

I watched them on TV cheering in the streets........seems all the applause is gone for now. Granted they don't have a "country" but their main base was in Afghanistan. As far as Iraq is concerned.......I've debated that point enough, believe as you will.

In "real life", if a neighbor allows an asshole to sit in their yard and throw objects at your house while cursing ya out on a daily basis.......the neighbor is in shit knee deep with the law also.

Have a good one!:s4:

In that instance, the police would handle it, not the army.

There are smaller scale military operations that could've taken care of it, rather than than displaying a high level of military and media aggressiveness.

Same instance with Iraq. Bush didn't want U.N. inspectors to finish the job, and he moved in.

Both these moves were done for pure economical reasons.

[thcbongman]

how come no one will dabble in the free trade topic? it seems like people who support him are ignoring the fact that free trade means people losing jobs. am i right or wrong? please explain.

To promote competition, and allow brooding grounds for innovation. It also allows for cheaper products and goods. The effect is that it hurts manufacturing jobs. However the type of jobs is shifted to service economy based. The biggest negative of free trade is we start to lose manufacturing skills amongst the population. It also hurts communities that were dependent upon it. I'm inclined to support some tariffs.

[epxroot]

Personally, I think it's the womans choice. That's my problem with his stance not to mention most of the candidates on the right.

Have a good one!:s4:

Hey, there are two things we agree on Global Warming, and freedom of choice!! I too think it should be the choice of the woman if she wants to or not. Thats what I like about Ron is even though he supports pro life he still thinks it isn't a Federal issue and needs to be handled at the state level. I really don't think you can pass a law against abortion it would lead to so much worse if that happened. If there were a law passed I wouldn't be shocked to hear them saying it's against the law to smoke in your own house if you have children living in it.