That's completely different from what Ron Paul says. Ron Paul says that abortion is murder. If Bush were as gung-ho about abortion, he wouldn't have been elected. Well, technically, he wasn't elected, so you just proved my point.
Ron Paul: Real Conservatives Don't Start Wars, They End Them Posted December 26, 2007 | 03:21 AM (EST) <hr> Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) recently gained fame for breaking one-day online donation records, but he's still considered an underdog by many because of his single-digit polling and arguably radical views on a variety of issues. For one thing, he supports an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, a position that seems more at home with the Democrats these days. So why is he up there, debate after debate, standing out from the likes of Huckabee and Romney and McCain? Why isn't he trying to fit in if he wants to win the primary? Is he even a Republican? He told me he is--just not the same kind as the rest of them. "I think their definitions are different," he said. "Today, the Party has been taken over by a group called neoconservatives, and I don't believe they're really conservative. I think they're really liberal in the modern sense of the word--they're big spenders, they believe in entitlements, they believe in military adventurism." Paul certainly doesn't believe in "military adventurism." He articulated an anti-preemption stance, geared toward avoiding another inextricable, Iraq-like conflict in the future. And unlike some politicians, he usually acts in accordance with his stated philosophy. For example, he was one of only six Republicans in the House to vote against the Iraq War Resolution. "The traditional conservative--which the Republicans used to be--did not advocate aggressive war, usually got our country out of the wars such as after Korea and Vietnam..." he said. "We've done exactly the opposite. And because I'm a strict constitutionalist, this has separated me from the other candidates." Some have called Ron Paul an isolationist, in part because of his views on foreign aid and the use of military force. He strongly disagreed with the association. "I'm the last thing from an isolationist," he said. "An isolationist is a protectionist--they want to build walls around their country. They may want to bring troops home, but they also want to close the door for trade and travel and the spreading of ideas, and that's quite different. The Founders, I think, had it right when they said, 'Trade with people, be friends with people, but don't get involved in their internal affairs and don't get involved in entangling alliances,' and you'd be a lot less likely to fight people that you're trading with than if you have protectionist measures and sanctions on countries [like] we do today." He added: "The same individuals who claim I might be an isolationist are the ones who are putting sanctions on countries like Iran and Iraq and Sudan, and yet the trade might stop us from fighting. I, for instance, think we should be trading with Castro, rather than putting sanctions on Castro, because it didn't do any good--after 40 or 50 years, it hasn't helped us a bit." Finally, Paul believes that the United States should not be entirely dependent on other nations for its energy. "I think the most important thing is to let the market set the price of energy and get out of the way of alternative energy," he said. "We've been interfering with the development of nuclear energy for 30 or 40 years. We don't develop any new nuclear power plants, but then at the same time we take money and we subsidize alternative fuels such as ethanol, which nobody's ever proven is an economically feasible alternative. So the most important thing is to recognize that the government bureaucrats and politicians have no idea what is the best alternative fuel, but if the market pushes the price of oil up, then people are going to say, 'Hey, they're running out of oil! And oil is now $200 a barrel, we better do something,' and the market's going to come up with the best alternative." These goals may seem ambitious, but Paul is conservative about what he could accomplish unilaterally, stressing that he would need to rely on congressional support that a mandate, in the form of his successful election to the presidency, would grant him. "You could [unilaterally] change the foreign policy and bring troops home and save a lot of money. And you could start repealing executive orders that have been so onerous. And you could refuse to enforce laws that are put on the books through regulations and by court orders or executive orders. So you could be discreet in what you enforce, but to really, really have the big changes, yes, you have to work and develop a consensus on what you're trying to do."
The New York Times prints a retraction to a smear peice it wrote on Paul They want real dirt .... they just can't find any. -------------- [SIZE=+4] NYT Retracts Paul - White Supremacy Link Story[/SIZE][SIZE=+1] The New York Times 12-27-7[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]A post in The Medium that appeared on Monday about the Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul and his purported adoption by white supremacist and neo-Nazi groups contained several errors. Stormfront, which describes itself as a "white nationalist" Internet community, did not give money to Ron Paul's presidential campaign; according to Jesse Benton, a spokesman for Paul's campaign, it was Don Black, the founder of Stormfront, who donated $500 to Paul. The original post also repeated a string of assertions by Bill White, the commander of the American National Socialist Workers Party, including the allegation that Paul meets regularly "with members of the Stormfront set, American Renaissance, the Institute for Historic Review and others" at a restaurant in Arlington, Va. Paul never attended these dinners, according to Benton, who also says that Paul has never knowingly met Bill White. Norman Singleton, a congressional aide in Paul's office, says that he met Bill White at a dinner gathering of conservatives several years ago, after which Singleton expressed his indignation at the views espoused by White to the organizer of the dinner. The original post should not have been published with these unverified assertions and without any response from Paul[/SIZE]
Ron Paul Excluded from New Hampshire Forum -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- New Hampshire Republican Party Leaders make decision to exclude Ron Paul from the January 6th forum. Reported by the Associated Press -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- by Michael McDonnough From the AP: GOP candidates to meet in N.H. forum WASHINGTON (AP) - The New Hampshire Republican Party is sponsoring a forum for Republican presidential candidates on Jan. 6, two days before the state's first-in-the-nation primary. The forum, where the candidates will be questioned by Fox New Channel's Chris Wallace, will be held a day after ABC holds back to back Democratic and Republican presidential debates. "Never underestimate New Hampshire voters' appetite for politics," said Fergus Cullen, the chairman of the state Republican Party. Participating in the forum will be Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson. Unlike a debate, the candidates will face questions from Wallace around a table in a studio on the campus of St. Anselm College in Goffstown, N.H.. The 90-minute encounter will air live beginning at 8 p.m. ET on the Fox News Channel and on Fox News Radio. ---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------- The decision to exclude Paul was made by the chairman of the New Hampshire Republican Party Fergus Cullen . fergus@nhgop.org Telephone: (603)225-9341 Fax: (603) 225-7498
That's disappointing, and completely unfounded. The key problem I have is that Thompson was included and he is polling lower than Paul in almost every single New Hampshire primary poll. I could understand if they selected the top 5 candidates and Paul was # 6, but that's not the case in New Hampshire. Not only is Paul currently polling in the 5th spot, but he's actually improved in the polls over the last couple of months while Thompson has declined. I will send an email in protest.
Ha, ha! That pretty much is the last nail in Ron Paul's coffin. :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :cheer: :cheer:
He took money from the guy who founded Stormfront, a racist internet board. He doesn't belong in the Republican debates.
They were literally flooded with Emails and calls and now it seems they're backpeddling and claiming it was an error on Pauls campaign managers fault. That he had not registered/confirmed for it yet ....
I'm sure the guy from Stormfront personally handed the money to Paul and said keep up the good work ... Did you know he takes money from pimps and strippers too ? What an idiotic arguement. :kick:
Something very magical is happening as more and more MSM guys are softening to Paul ... Notice in this interview they state Tucker Carlson has publically joined the many who are endorsing Ron Paul .... but even more interestingly at the very end of the interview , Scarborough tells his viewers and Ron Paul ... He has another supporter who's never voted before that is on the Ron Paul bandwagon .... HIS SON ! .... "Joey Scarborough a member of the Ron Paul rEVOLution! " :clap: Scarborough actually resounds agreement with Ron Paul for his fiscal policy and gives him and "AMEN" ... :clap: They bring up points like his raising the most money ever by any party in a single day and it being "buried on page 50 of the Washington Post" instead of being headline news ... Yes ... something magical is happening ... will you be a part of it ? <object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/kBJK9psnNUo&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/kBJK9psnNUo&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object> All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Ron Paul doesn't have the charisma for teh office. Forget policies. We all know that the presidency is bigger than one man. America will do whatever America will do regardless of who's elected. Therefore charm and charisma is what's important here!
In other words : American's are stupid and easily swayed. Charisma without substance wins over substance without charisma ... I believe your right ... but this time things may be different. :clap:
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/vza4p71X6g8&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vza4p71X6g8&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
Then again , this may not be true as this statement was just released from Ron Paul on the situation .... -------------- Paul: Fox News is 'scared of me' Link By James Pindell December 29, 2007 01:40 PM PLAISTOW, N.H. -- Ron Paul said the decision to exclude him from a debate on Fox News Sunday the weekend before the New Hampshire Primary is proof that the network "is scared" of him. "They are scared of me and don't want my message to get out, but it will," Paul said in an interview at a diner here. "They are propagandists for this war and I challenge them on the notion that they are conservative." Paul's staff said they are beginning to plan a rally that will take place at the same time the 90-minute debate will air on television. It will be taped at Saint Anselm College in Goffstown. "They will not win this skirmish," he promised. The Fox debate occurs less than 24 hours after two back to back Republican and Democratic debates on the same campus sponsored by ABC News, WMUR-TV and the social networking website Facebook. Paul, the Republican Texas Congressman, was wrapping up his final day of campaigning in New Hampshire until the Iowa Caucuses on Thursday. He spent much of the day campaigning at diners in Manchester and Plaistow and downtown walks in Derry and Exeter.
Only people with bad spelling support Ron Paul. Anyway, do you still post articles about Las Vegas odds on Ron Paul? What are they now? 1000 to 1?
The truth is that he can muster no better argument in this case. Paul is the best choice, but American's still don't do enough research to substaniate their vote. They take what they're most easily feed. I think it's 50% laziness and 50% fear of something different. Nevertheless, it's poor voting.
paul wants to get rid statuatory monopolies, like in telecommunications, water services, electricity, etc dont think i agree with this stance
Don't worry. He's never going to do that. Pedro, What are the odds on Ron Paul becoming elected now? I haven't kept up with the Vegas odds.
he mentioned he would get rid of them in the hour long google interview he did for youtube would be a logistical nightmare
Oh, I know he said he would. I just don't think he ever would. I don't think he would ever get rid of income taxes, either. Basically, what he'd do is enact changes that would take 10 years to complete and 20 years before we see any noticable gains. It would be lovely if we could build a nation with Ron Paul's ideals in mind, but it wouldn't take a president with four or eight years to build it. It would take a dictator. Ron Paul should start making connections with Blackwater and go the fascist route, the way Preston Bush tried to.
Yeah that's what the guy who warns of fascism in America would do. Here's a clue for you .... when a guy like Paul gets the wheels rolling and makes major changes , or even the start of major change ... the people get woken up to what it is they've been missing , hope springs and turns into a flood and there's no stopping it. The people would except nothing less and would demand it from the next president and their congressmen. What you propose is that we accept someone that won't do shit except more of the same because the bureaucracy wouldn't allow it so why not just bend over and take it. It's people like you that allowed the Hitler's of the world to come to power. :kick:
Haha ... this is great if true . :clap: 29 December 2007 Will There Be a Run on NewsCorp (NWS) Holdings? <script type="text/javascript"> digg_url = 'http://libertyline.blogspot.com/2007/12/will-there-be-run-on-newscorp-nws.html'; </script>On the heels of a December 28th, 2007 AP report that confirms Ron Paul's exclusion from the Fox News roundtable discussion of January 6th, 2008, the same kinds of energetic Ron Paul supporters who engineered the November 5th 2007 $4.3 million fund drive and the December 16th $6.03 million drive, are taking a new approach to speaking out in the wake of a media blackout: a massive selloff of NewsCorp (NWS) stock. Unlike the earlier efforts which were organized at a grassroots level, there appears to be no organization behind this latest move whatsoever. Instead, irate investors from around the nation and around the world began announcing their plans to dump NWS stock in several internet forums, and upon discussions they began to achieve consensus that much of the liquidated funds would be donated to the Ron Paul campaign coffers. One investor, when asked for comment, told us, "I am tired, sick and tired of NewsCorp's Fox News channel deciding for the American public who they will and will not permit to run for President. Nobody asked me to sell my shares of NewsCorp, but I refuse to allow my capitol to be used to censor legitimate presidential candidates." Will all of this anger and talk of selloffs actually translate into a run on NewsCorp stock? Only time will tell. In the meantime, savvy investors will be keeping a close eye on NWS stock over the next week.
regarding his exclusion from a debate in fox, Ron Pauls campaign actually got the date wrong at first. The original date (January 5th, not 6th) was scrapped months ago. All they had to do was to confirm the date and there would have been no problem. Lack of organization let this fall through the cracks, and that was the fault of Ron Paul's campaign. When I take a look at his financial disclosure statements there are a lot of investments in coins and shrimp companies? Do you think he's ever earmarked money from congress toward these projects? Just another note, his financial disclosure reporting (stating who he gets money from) trails behind all other republican candidates except Tancredo, Thompson and Keyes.
Since youre posing the question I'm betting you already know the answer , so , I'm sure the answer is yes ... So what's your point ? Do you think he did it for himself alone ? How's his record compared to others ? Is THAT the best dirt you have on him ? .... my god he's a SAINT compared to the others! :clap:
PS .... you should call FOX NBC CBS MSNBC CNN and all the other MSM news agencies .... Even they have yet to dig that bullshit up on Paul. You could get paid for it ! :clap:
