Just a thought..

[8182KSKUSH]

As Edwards has pulled out, (although we all know that it's not always 100% effective,) and after Rudy has gone out. It is freaking funny as hell to see Ron Paul sitting at that debate after he lost in Florida to Rudy by something like 500%, and Rudy lost by even more of course! However Rudy says, "ok that's bad I am done," and there's Ron. Just sittin there. WTF? I am correct right? Rudy got about 500% more votes than Ron and dropped out, while Ron Paul says, "I am going to be on t.v. again and shoot people with my finger!":wtf: Does what I am saying make sense to anyone?:jointsmile:

[Psycho4Bud]

There comes a time when it's best to throw in your cards but I guess when the government is matching all your followers donations; what the hell, lets waste some of that government money via the constitution.

IF he really believed in the garbage he preaches he WOULDN'T be wasting tax payers money on this or the earmarks for his precious shrimping industry...............just another D.C. hypocrit.

Have a good one!:s4:

[Zimzum]

As Edwards has pulled out, (although we all know that it's not always 100% effective,) and after Rudy has gone out. It is freaking funny as hell to see Ron Paul sitting at that debate after he lost in Florida to Rudy by something like 500%, and Rudy lost by even more of course! However Rudy says, "ok that's bad I am done," and there's Ron. Just sittin there. WTF? I am correct right? Rudy got about 500% more votes than Ron and dropped out, while Ron Paul says, "I am going to be on t.v. again and shoot people with my finger!":wtf: Does what I am saying make sense to anyone?:jointsmile:

Ron never campaigned in Florida as it was too expensive of a state for a winner take all with the delegates. No state yet has had their conventions to assign the delegates so delegate counts right now are nothing more then guesses (Hillary beat Obama in NV yet they both split the delegate count 50/50). It may surprise you but Ron has something no other candidate has.. principles. Maybe if MSM had given him fair and equal coverage from the start he would be much better off today. Jesus wasn't a superstar over night but eventually his message caught on with people.



There comes a time when it's best to throw in your cards but I guess when the government is matching all your followers donations; what the hell, lets waste some of that government money via the constitution.


Ron doesn't take public campaign funds for his presidential bid. And candidates that do take it, it comes from the part of your tax forms that say "would you like to contribute $3 to the state/federal election fund". Here is a link to the FEC explaining what and how these funds work. Public Funding of Presidential Elections (http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/pubfund.shtml) Ron Paul does not qualify.

[Psycho4Bud]

It may surprise you but Ron has something no other candidate has.. principles. Maybe if MSM had given him fair and equal coverage from the start he would be much better off today. Jesus wasn't a superstar over night but eventually his message caught on with people.

My own feelings, IF he had principles he wouldn't go after earmarks. Just another D.C. politician with a pocket full of promises.


Ron doesn't take public campaign funds for his presidential bid. Ron Paul does not qualify.

Glad to hear it........just so long a person should keep pumping money into a car thats destiny is the scrap heap.

Have a good one!:s4:

[Markass]

My own feelings, IF he had principles he wouldn't go after earmarks. Just another D.C. politician with a pocket full of promises.



Glad to hear it........just so long a person should keep pumping money into a car thats destiny is the scrap heap.

Have a good one!:s4:

What promises is he making? To eliminate the IRS, because the government shouldn't be wasting our money, to end the federal war on drugs, cutting government spending by eliminating departments of the federal government that are unnecessary? It's strange because you don't usually hear a presidential candidate say things that people don't necessarily want to hear, but things that are the unavoidable problems we're going to have to face very soon, because we're going broke. I think that's exactly why so many young people support him, because he speaks the TRUTH, rather than what he thinks people want him to say, and that truth being the problems that all of the young people of this country are going to inherit. This country is going to shit, and it sucks to have to watch it.

If Ron Paul was just another politician from DC, I don't think the media would censor him out like they do.

[Psycho4Bud]

The media ignores him because of his supporting base. They find it a HUGE joke that he always wins the text message voting on the debates but can only pull a single digit percentage in the actual primaries and caucus's. I see since he denounced the 9-11 conspiracy our posts in that area are few to none......where are these same people that used to say "sheeple"?

His stance regarding the economy and foreign affairs don't even fall withing the GOP's "format". Why run Republican when it's clear that your a full fledge Libertarian? Giving these promises, full well knowing that there is no chance in hell of EVER gaining a majority support structure from either the GOP or Dems in Congress or Senate, is handing out a bag full of promises with nothing to back it.

Have a good one!:s4:

[yokinazu]

ok would ron paul have all this support if his campaign said everything hes promising with the exception that he would increase the spending on the drug war and toughen up penaltys for cannibis? hmmm i dont think so.

ron paul talks a real good game but i wonder how many of his supporters actually know how our gov't works. i hear about how hes goin to legalize the pot, overturn roe v wade, do away with the IRS, etc. etc. hate to be the bearer of bad news but the president , no matter who he is, CAN NOT do any of these things. all this takes an act of congress. he can put the bill in font of congress. but here is how it works first the bill will go to the house IF it passes with a majority vote it will go on to the senate IF it passes the senate with a majority vote then it goes in front of the president who has the authority to veto. now some of the changes he proposes are constitutional, to change that you have to have not a majority but a 2/3 approval. so until we get a pro-cannibis house and senate dont bet o decrmilization of the herb.

so now to my point, yes it is important to vote for the president but it is just as, if not more important to vote for congress. and if your not gettin out and voting in EVERY election, and i mean all of them from your local scchool board, mayor, city council, govenor, etc. don expect any changes. also write these people let them know how you feal. get out there and let your voice be heard

[8182KSKUSH]

Right on Yok, most of his supporters don't understand how our government works, probably because they are still finishing their 8th Grade social studies! And it is hysterical that all of the sudden what, 9/11 conspiracy people are where? Did you sill Bull Clinton rip that asshole 9/11 guy? Awesome! That's the first thing I have ever heard that man say that made me smile. Ron won't run as anything but a Republican because usually in most states, you have to be registered in one of the 2 anti parties to vote in the primaries. If he actually ran as a Lib or from the Martian Party then his 1% of actuall support would be gone.;)

[dragonrider]

Sometimes candidates who have no real hope of winning stay in a race in order to bring their issues to the agenda and to shape the debate. Agenda control is a very important part of the political process. Ron Paul talks about things that others don't, so he brings those issues to the table that might otherwise be ignored. I don't support Ron Paul, don't agree with him on most things, and I knew from the beginning he had no chance, but I think he really believes what he says, and I think he's staying in becasue he wants his issues heard as long as possible.

Another possibility is that he will make a third party run, and he just is using the Republican primary as a way to get some publicity before dropping out of the party. A third party run would have no chance either, but he might do that for agenda-control reasons as well.

[The Gnome]

i hear about how hes goin to legalize the pot, overturn roe v wade, do away with the IRS, etc. etc.

Overturn Roe v. Wade?! Is this man absolutely loony? I read that on his website, too. Paul preaches near absolute freedom in the markets, in taxes, in medicine, and his supporters claim that he will bring "freedom to America"

and yet, he wants to take away a basic right of choice for all human women!

And yoki is right, I don't think POTUS can overturn a Supreme Court decision very easily...thank the Constitution he claims to defend.

[Zimzum]

Overturn Roe v. Wade?! Is this man absolutely loony? I read that on his website, too. Paul preaches near absolute freedom in the markets, in taxes, in medicine, and his supporters claim that he will bring "freedom to America"

and yet, he wants to take away a basic right of choice for all human women!

And yoki is right, I don't think POTUS can overturn a Supreme Court decision very easily...thank the Constitution he claims to defend.

No, he wants to give states back their rights to make laws without much federal interference. If Ron got elected and overturned Roe vs. Wade this would give citizens the right to vote on this matter and I highly doubt a ban would pass in any state. "Roe" just recently endorsed Ron Paul. No where in Article III of the constitution does it say that a supreme court ruling is law of the land.

The federal government takes away too many rights of the states, weather its forcing states to allow and pay for abortions or denying states the right to medical marijuana that have passed a vote. If you want to be told how to live then vote for the plastic candidate. If you want choice in how you live then vote Ron Paul.

[Psycho4Bud]

No, he wants to give states back their rights to make laws without much federal interference. If Ron got elected and overturned Roe vs. Wade this would give citizens the right to vote on this matter and I highly doubt a ban would pass in any state. "Roe" just recently endorsed Ron Paul. No where in Article III of the constitution does it say that a supreme court ruling is law of the land.

The federal government takes away too many rights of the states, weather its forcing states to allow and pay for abortions or denying states the right to medical marijuana that have passed a vote. If you want to be told how to live then vote for the plastic candidate. If you want choice in how you live then vote Ron Paul.

* Embryonic stem cell programs not constitutionally authorized. (May 2007)
* Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
* Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
* Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
* Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
* Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save motherâ??s life. (Oct 2003)
* Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
* Voted YES on funding for health providers who donâ??t provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)
* Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
* Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)
* Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
* Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)
* No federal funding of abortion, and pro-life. (Dec 2000)
* Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
Ron Paul on Life, Abortion and Stem Cells (http://www.shanktified.com/archives/ron-paul-on-life-abortion-and-stem-cells/)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66jpPCIzza8

His position on this is VERY clear.

As for Roe...........

AP) The former plaintiff known as "Jane Roe" in the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court case that legalized abortion sought to have the case overturned in a motion filed Tuesday that asks the courts to consider new evidence that abortion hurts women.

Norma McCorvey, who joined the anti-abortion fight nearly 10 years ago and says she regrets her role in Roe v. Wade, said the Supreme Court's decision is no longer valid because scientific and anecdotal evidence that has come to light in the last 30 years has shown the negative effects of abortion.

"We're getting our babies back," a jubilant McCorvey said at a news conference while flanked by about 60 women, some who sobbed and held signs that read "I regret my abortion."
'Roe' Wants Abortion Case Reversed, Plaintiff In Landmark Case Now An Anti-Abortion Advocate - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/20/national/main559627.shtml)

Seems she changed her mind.......no wonder she supports Ron Pauls position.

Have a good one!:s4:

[epxroot]

Right on Yok, most of his supporters don't understand how our government works, probably because they are still finishing their 8th Grade social studies! And it is hysterical that all of the sudden what, 9/11 conspiracy people are where?

I would like to see how you found the evidence that most of his supporters don't understand how the Government works! I don't think your research has lead you in the right direction. I know that all of the people I work with and canvas with understand completely how the Government works. We also understand that he does not have the power to just start making new laws, but having a man with his understanding on individual human rights and of economics he has a good idea where to start.
We have a serious spending problem and I have not seen anyone except for Ron Paul really try an address this issue. Back in the 1930's 12% of the National income was consumed by our Government and 88% still belonged to the private sector. Now let's fast forward to 2007 where now we have the Government consuming 44% of our National income and leave the private sector with only 56%. This is a huge problem and needs to be dealt with TODAY! The more we shrink the private sector the weaker our economy becomes. About every economist in the world will tell you that family income, saving, living standard AND freedom growth depend on the capacity of the private sector.

[dragonrider]

I would like to see how you found the evidence that most of his supporters don't understand how the Government works! I don't think your research has lead you in the right direction. I know that all of the people I work with and canvas with understand completely how the Government works. We also understand that he does not have the power to just start making new laws, but having a man with his understanding on individual human rights and of economics he has a good idea where to start.

It's things like this that make people think his supporters don't know how government works:


No, he wants to give states back their rights to make laws without much federal interference. If Ron got elected and overturned Roe vs. Wade this would give citizens the right to vote on this matter and I highly doubt a ban would pass in any state. "Roe" just recently endorsed Ron Paul. No where in Article III of the constitution does it say that a supreme court ruling is law of the land.


Zimzum, as a practical matter, how exactly would he overturn Roe vs. Wade and give states the right to make their own decisions on abortion? It's a Supreme Court ruling. He is the President. He can't just declare a Supreme Court ruling overturned. What kinds of real actions could he take to accomplish what you are talking about? Is there any legistlation he could propose? Are there any executive branch actions he could take? I can't think of any. States already have the right to make all the laws they want about abortion, and then the Supreme Court rules them to be unconstitutional and strikes them down. Ron Paul cannot give the states the right to make laws that the Supreme Court deems to be unconstitutional. As far as I can tell, the only action Ron Paul, or anyone else, could take as president would be to appoint Supreme Court justices who shared his views.

As for whether states would make laws restricting abortion if they were allowed to by the Supreme Court: of course some of them would! I can't believe that you think they would not. What do you think all this fighting has been about for all these years?

And about whether the constitution says that a supreme court ruling is law of the land: among other things, the constitution gives the supreme court the authority to rule on the constitutionality of laws and strike them down if unconstitutional. It doesn not give the court the right to make new laws, if that is what you mean. But there is no higher authority on the law, so a Supreme Court ruling is the "law of the land" in the sense that there is no other recourse for appeal.

Personally, I support a woman's right to choose, so I would not support Ron Paul based on his anti-abortion positions anyway. But I don't really see how he would have any practical way to accomplish what he wants to do anyway --- to give states a right the Supreme Court says they do not have.

[epxroot]

It's things like this that make people think his supporters don't know how government works:

Interesting...:wtf:

[Zimzum]

His position on this is VERY clear.



Again, Ron is a strict consitutionalist and all those votes you listed, if you look into them, you will see that his stance is in line with the constitution.

Full artical here (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul394.html). Its about stem cell research but it also applies to his abortion stance and why he sees that a federal ban or mandate is bad.


Our founding fathers devised a system of governance that limited federal activity very narrowly. In doing so, they intended to keep issues such as embryonic stem cell research entirely out of Washingtonâ??s hands. They believed issues such as this should be tackled by free people acting freely in their churches and medical associations, and in the marketplace that would determine effective means of research. When government policies on this issue were to be developed, our founders would have left them primarily to state legislators to decide in accord with community standards.

Their approach was also the only one consistent with a concern for the rights and freedom of all individuals, and for limiting negative impacts upon taxpayers. When Washington subsidizes something, it does so at the direct expense of the taxpayer. Likewise, when Washington bans something, it generally requires a federal agency and a team of federal agents â?? often heavily-armed federal agents â?? to enforce the ban. These agencies become the means by which the citizenry is harassed by government intrusions. Yet it is the mere existence of these agencies, and the attendant costs associated with operating them, that leads directly to the abuse of the taxpayersâ?? pocketbooks.

If Congress attempts to override the Presidentâ??s veto, I will support the President. As a physician, I am well aware that certain stem cells have significant medical potential and do not raise the moral dilemmas presented by embryonic stem cell research. My objection is focused on the issue of federal funding. Unfortunately, in the Washington environment of â??either subsidize it, or else ban it,â?� it is unlikely there will be much focus given to the issue of federal funding. Instead, virulent charges will fly regarding who is willing to sacrifice the lives and health of others to make a political point.

Only when Washington comes to understand that our founders expressly intended for our federal government to be limited in scope, will policy questions such as this be rightly understood. But that understanding will not come until the people demand their elected officials act in accordance with these principles.






It's things like this that make people think his supporters don't know how government works:



Zimzum, as a practical matter, how exactly would he overturn Roe vs. Wade and give states the right to make their own decisions on abortion? It's a Supreme Court ruling. He is the President. He can't just declare a Supreme Court ruling overturned. What kinds of real actions could he take to accomplish what you are talking about? Is there any legistlation he could propose? Are there any executive branch actions he could take? I can't think of any. States already have the right to make all the laws they want about abortion, and then the Supreme Court rules them to be unconstitutional and strikes them down. Ron Paul cannot give the states the right to make laws that the Supreme Court deems to be unconstitutional. As far as I can tell, the only action Ron Paul, or anyone else, could take as president would be to appoint Supreme Court justices who shared his views.

Yes appointing a supreme court judge would probably be his best bet. However he could introduce legislation into congress that would at least end any federal funding to support it. And as president he could try and educate people as to why the government should not be in control of ones personal life. Through regulations the government controls us via taxes, laws, and enforcement. I'm pro choice but theres many pro lifers out there and they too should be able to live and fight for what they believe in as well.


As for whether states would make laws restricting abortion if they were allowed to by the Supreme Court: of course some of them would! I can't believe that you think they would not. What do you think all this fighting has been about for all these years?

Some will try, I agree. But if people would be less apathetic towords politics and pay attention to it like they pay attention to "American Idol" and "Dancing with the Stars", laws banning abortion (or anything) would face better public scrutiny. States that do ban abortion would lose out on allot of tax revenue as people would move to states that better suit the ideals they support. Then in turn that said state may change its mind to keep people from flocking to its neighbor. ( who here on Cannabis .com wouldn't move to a state that fully legalized marijuana in place of a state that would issue the death penalty for it?)

[angry nomad]

So, you guys who are so against Ron Paul, who are you going to vote for anyway?

[dragonrider]

So, you guys who are so against Ron Paul, who are you going to vote for anyway?

There is a thread on this: http://boards.cannabis.com/politics/148623-if-election-today.html

As we speak, "They're all shit" is beating Obama 6 to 5. McCain has 1 vote. Your buddy Ron Paul is not on that ballot, but I see you cast a "write in" vote for him. McLeodGanja has cast a "write in" for Hilda Ogden, but since he is Scottish and she is English, I think we might be haivng a bit of voter fraud here.

[angry nomad]

There is a thread on this: http://boards.cannabis.com/politics/148623-if-election-today.html

As we speak, "They're all shit" is beating Obama 6 to 5. McCain has 1 vote. Your buddy Ron Paul is not on that ballot, but I see you cast a "write in" vote for him. McLeodGanja has cast a "write in" for Hilda Ogden, but since he is Scottish and she is English, I think we might be haivng a bit of voter fraud here.

Maybe a lot of "they're all shit" votes are for Ron Paul just like how some of the phone polls "other" gets a lot of votes because Ron Paul is not an option in their phone polls.

[8182KSKUSH]

I would like to see how you found the evidence that most of his supporters don't understand how the Government works! I don't think your research has lead you in the right direction. I know that all of the people I work with and canvas with understand completely how the Government works..

I stand corrected, obviously you said something there that I haven't taken into consideration. I made an assumption. Here it is, I did not realize until you just pointed it out, that all of his supporters are just the people that canvas for him as you said you know "all the people you work with", and I assuming you are talking about "canvasing" and other Wrong Rupaul related campaign activities that you do. And you claim they have a firm understanding of how government works and "really" know what Wrong wants to do and how he'll do it. It makes sense though that all his supporters ARE JUST the people that canvas for him. But that's not right either because you also have to account for ALL of his supporters that are between the ages of 13 and 17 too! Right?:wtf:

[8182KSKUSH]

Maybe a lot of "they're all shit" votes are for Ron Paul just like how some of the phone polls "other" gets a lot of votes because Ron Paul is not an option in their phone polls.

I think that you missed it, I believe that Wrong would definately be included in the "they are ALL SHIT". I would consider him the tapered end that is pointing straight up. JMHO:thumbsup:

That's some pretty wishful thinking though! A little optomistic don't you think?:jointsmile:

[epxroot]

I stand corrected, obviously you said something there that I haven't taken into consideration. I made an assumption. Here it is, I did not realize until you just pointed it out, that all of his supporters are just the people that canvas for him as you said you know "all the people you work with", and I assuming you are talking about "canvasing" and other Wrong Rupaul related campaign activities that you do. And you claim they have a firm understanding of how government works and "really" know what Wrong wants to do and how he'll do it. It makes sense though that all his supporters ARE JUST the people that canvas for him. But that's not right either because you also have to account for ALL of his supporters that are between the ages of 13 and 17 too! Right?:wtf:

Hmmm.... Are you trying to imply that Ron is the only candidate who has people under the age of 18 supporting him? Ron Paul has the largest meet up groups online and we all talk and work with each other online, so yes we do have an understanding of what Ron wants to do and how he will do it. I don't know about you but I think having a Candidate who wants to follow the constitution and follow it strictly is something this country needs.

[8182KSKUSH]

Hmmm.... Are you trying to imply that Ron is the only candidate who has people under the age of 18 supporting him? Ron Paul has the largest meet up groups online and we all talk and work with each other online, so yes we do have an understanding of what Ron wants to do and how he will do it. I don't know about you but I think having a Candidate who wants to follow the constitution and follow it strictly is something this country needs.

No I am not implying anything, I am flat out stating that most of his supporters are not adults, I think it's great that any of the candidates would get support from people under 18, but it is really REALLY irrelevant. You can't vote if you are under 18, which easily explains how he can win landslide txt msging voting and lose his ass in real elections.:thumbsup:

[epxroot]

No I am not implying anything, I am flat out stating that most of his supporters are not adults, I think it's great that any of the candidates would get support from people under 18, but it is really REALLY irrelevant. You can't vote if you are under 18, which easily explains how he can win landslide txt msging voting and lose his ass in real elections.:thumbsup:

So what is his secret to winning the txt message polls?

[BlueCat00]

I think Ron Paul has some really good points. I really like the little guy. I think he is running on the wrong ticket. Actually the way the other republican candidates laugh at him they must think he is on the wrong ticket too.

I like him. I just can't see him being tough. I want someone that will kick Pakistan's ass if need be.

Ron Paul doesn't seem like the ass kicking type.

[Markass]

I think Ron Paul has some really good points. I really like the little guy. I think he is running on the wrong ticket. Actually the way the other republican candidates laugh at him they must think he is on the wrong ticket too.

I like him. I just can't see him being tough. I want someone that will kick Pakistan's ass if need be.

Ron Paul doesn't seem like the ass kicking type.

Yeah, Ron Paul seems like the money saving and freedom restoring type...Which is exactly why I'm voting for him. The constitution means a lot to me, and a president who would expressly follow the rule of the constitution is a true American. Limited government is just what we need, I don't need the government to tell me how to fucking live, or how to spend my money, it's my body and it's my money, and I would like to do as I wish with both of those things. The government takes my money to rebuild bridges in Iraq that we're blowing up...And they force me to smoke cigarettes and drink alcohol, and tell me that I will be arrested for using marijuana, because it wont kill me or get me hooked. Fuck the government.

Ron Paul or noone at all.

[BlueCat00]

Good for you! I am an Obama person myself but as long as you are involved in the process thats all that matters.

Obama also knows the need to respect our constitution. He has been defending it as a constitutional lawyer for a while. He has even taught constitutional law.

Have you read this paper by Ron Paul? Its really good.

The Original American Foreign Policy by Ron Paul (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul375.html)

I really don't know why he ran as a republican...

[Zimzum]

I really don't know why he ran as a republican...

He's been elected into congress 10x as a Republican and in '88 while on the Libertarian ticket he was still a registered Republican. Being in any 3rd party would have only gotten him less media coverage then he is getting now.

I'll write-in Ron in the primaries if he doesn't make it or get on a 3rd party ticket. I don't know if he will win but at least more people now know his positions then they did a year ago and his message will resonate to future elections. Ron has inspired many of his followers to get into politics at the local level to try and change things from the ground up. Maybe in 10 years we can look back and say Ron was on to something. If you don't believe me go check out his book "A Foreign Policy of Freedom: Peace, Commerce, and Honest Friendship ". Its a collection of all his floor speeches in the house of Reps. Compare what he was saying 10-15 years ago to where we are now today and you can see he was spot on.

Ron's got a new book coming out in April called "The Revolution: A Manifesto" which is currently #3 on Amazon and #13 on Barns and Noble. Apparently us spammers got ahold of a credit card. ;) The preface to the book can be found here : Ron Paul Book Bomb (http://ronpaulbookbomb.com/). I've got 6 books on order, one for me, three to be mailed to family members, and the last two will be donated to the public library.

[Markass]

He's been elected into congress 10x as a Republican and in '88 while on the Libertarian ticket he was still a registered Republican. Being in any 3rd party would have only gotten him less media coverage then he is getting now.

I'll write-in Ron in the primaries if he doesn't make it or get on a 3rd party ticket. I don't know if he will win but at least more people now know his positions then they did a year ago and his message will resonate to future elections. Ron has inspired many of his followers to get into politics at the local level to try and change things from the ground up. Maybe in 10 years we can look back and say Ron was on to something. If you don't believe me go check out his book "A Foreign Policy of Freedom: Peace, Commerce, and Honest Friendship ". Its a collection of all his floor speeches in the house of Reps. Compare what he was saying 10-15 years ago to where we are now today and you can see he was spot on.

Ron's got a new book coming out in April called "The Revolution: A Manifesto" which is currently #3 on Amazon and #13 on Barns and Noble. Apparently us spammers got ahold of a credit card. ;) The preface to the book can be found here : Ron Paul Book Bomb (http://ronpaulbookbomb.com/). I've got 6 books on order, one for me, three to be mailed to family members, and the last two will be donated to the public library.


right on

[gh0st]

I think Ron Paul will make a fine president! I support him to the fullest extent. I don't know why, but alot of people just hate the thought of Ron Paul, while so many seem to adore him. it feels kind of strange...almost unreal. If you don't like the man then don't vote for him, at least let him get the little media attentions he deserves. With that said, since i support Ron Paul, and I am FAR passed the legal age to vote. (unlike most of Ron Pauls supporters) I will defently be voting for this man because he is a true Leader :woohoo: In your face!

[8182KSKUSH]

Hey good for you, so he should get let's see,
0 electoral votes. Yeah I think I counted that right!:D

[gh0st]

so who do you plan on voting for? maybe you can steer me in the direction in a better canidate?

[8182KSKUSH]

I don't care who you vote for, vote for whomever you want. If you already really believe in Wrong RuPaul then so be it, I sincerely doubt you will listen to anything I or anyone else that disagrees with you says. Good luck, let me know when hell freeze over.:thumbsup:

[gh0st]

I don't care who you vote for, vote for whomever you want. If you already really believe in Wrong RuPaul then so be it, I sincerely doubt you will listen to anything I or anyone else that disagrees with you says. Good luck, let me know when hell freeze over.:thumbsup:

LMFAO!!! alrite buddy youre a little strange. best of luck to you mate

[8182KSKUSH]

LMFAO!!! alrite buddy youre a little strange. best of luck to you mate

Hey I'll take that, a "little" strange is the nicest thing anyone has said about me today!:D