Author Topic: I'm voting for Ron Paul (Read 33303 times)

Paddy · « **on:** October 19, 2007, 04:04:42 PM »

And I urge all of you to do the same. Anyone who pledges to get rid of the income tax, abolish the IRS and do away with SS has my vote. Not that it will make any diff here in CA, the Dem will still get the electoral votes.

If you vote (yet again) for the 'lesser of two evils', you'll still get evil, in the form of either another big government liberal Republican, or a wacked out Marxist Democrat. Either way is not acceptable IMO.

Let's do something different this time. Your vote does count. Use it wisely.

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #1 on:** October 19, 2007, 07:01:31 PM »

So you're voting for the lesser of three evils?

Nothing against Ron Paul, it's just the obvious response to the "lesser of two evils" line.

Manedwolf · « **Reply #2 on:** October 19, 2007, 08:20:03 PM »

Paul is the Republicans' counterpart to Kucinich.

vernal45 · « **Reply #3 on:** October 19, 2007, 08:56:27 PM »

Like Ron Paul or hate him. Agree with him or not. He will not win, or even come close. A vote for Ron Paul to "send a message" is a vote for the Democrats. Plain and simple. Its your vote, just dont want to hear you bitch about Hillary in the white house.

CAnnoneer · « **Reply #4 on:** October 19, 2007, 11:58:07 PM »

Functionally, Ron Paul corresponds to Ralf Nader.

brer · « **Reply #5 on:** October 20, 2007, 12:50:35 AM »

If Ron ends up putting Hillary in the white house, so be it.

Might be the GOP could start courting the voters that Ron is gathering up.

For too many years we have been voting against people. IE keeping dems out of the white house.

I think its time to actually vote for someone.

LadySmith · « **Reply #6 on:** October 20, 2007, 01:49:15 AM »

At this rate I just might vote for Stephen Colbert. grin

Standing Wolf · « **Reply #7 on:** October 20, 2007, 03:32:11 AM »

Quote

If you vote (yet again) for the 'lesser of two evils', you'll still get evil, in the form of either another big government liberal Republican, or a wacked out Marxist Democrat.

The only way to break up the Republicrat-Democan partynot "parties," plural, but "party," singularis to turn around and walk away from them.

No more so-called "lesser of two evils" for me: all I ended up with was evil.

K Frame · « **Reply #8 on:** October 20, 2007, 04:21:17 AM »

"Im voting for Ron Paul"

We'll alert the media.

RadioFreeSeaLab · « **Reply #9 on:** October 20, 2007, 05:42:35 AM »

Quote from: Standing Wolf on October 20, 2007, 02:32:11 AM

Quote

If you vote (yet again) for the 'lesser of two evils', you'll still get evil, in the form of either another big government liberal Republican, or a wacked out Marxist Democrat.

The only way to break up the Republicrat-Democan partynot "parties," plural, but "party," singularis to turn around and walk away from them.

No more so-called "lesser of two evils" for me: all I ended up with was evil.

Exactly. I'm done voting for Evil Lite.

vernal45 · « **Reply #10 on:** October 20, 2007, 09:41:57 AM »

Like I said, its your vote. A "sending a message vote" will end up with Hillary in the white house, maybe for longer that 1 term. A lot of damage can be done to the 2A. Glad you are ready to live with it. Remember how long we had to deal with the AWB.

Tallpine · « **Reply #11 on:** October 20, 2007, 12:56:30 PM »

Quote

Hillary in the white house, maybe for longer that 1 term. A lot of damage can be done to the 2A

And Rudy would be any better ....? rolleyes

vernal45 · « **Reply #12 on:** October 20, 2007, 06:20:21 PM »

Rudy would not be good at all, but better than Hillary.

Sergeant Bob · « **Reply #13 on:** October 20, 2007, 07:20:22 PM »

Quote from: vernal45 on October 20, 2007, 05:20:21 PM

Rudy would not be good at all, but better than Hillary.

At least if Hillary were elected, maybe the GOP ~~would~~ might grow a pair and minimize the damage she could do. If Rudy were President, they'd probably move in lockstep with him and I believe that would damage the country much more than a Clinton presidency.

LAK · « **Reply #14 on:** October 21, 2007, 12:47:15 AM »

Mainstream media has finally had to admit the fact that Ron Paul is a serious candidate.

Let us not forget that it is the Electoral College that casts the deciding votes for the WH. However, governments rule on an essential measure of confidence among other things. If whoever sits in the WH next time around does so by the slimmest of margins - "republican" or "democrat" - they might not ride out any of the insanities the current and some past administrations have run ridden out.

The other issue is electronic voting; it is wide open to manipulation. We need an open transparent election with an open public record and paper trail.

Ron Paul is the only candidate that will break the stranglehold that the international oligarchy has on our country, and I will not be voting for any of their frontmen or women.

----------------------------------------

http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #15 on:** October 21, 2007, 01:59:01 AM »

Quote from: LAK on October 20, 2007, 11:47:15 PM

Mainstream media has finally had to admit the fact that Ron Paul is a serious candidate.

I doubt that. More likely, they have gleefully reported the fact that he has a pretty significant following. If you think it pained them to acknowledge that, think again. Anything that indicates public (especially conservative) disapproval of the Iraq war is gold to the media.

Fly320s · « **Reply #16 on:** October 21, 2007, 02:43:15 AM »

Quote from: vernal45 on October 20, 2007, 05:20:21 PM

Rudy would not be good at all, but better than Hillary.

So, losing your 2nd amendment rights, among others, is fine so long as you're screwed by the "right" party?

You don't mind that the US becomes more socialist, as long as the Republicans do it?

Gotcha.

Finch · « **Reply #17 on:** October 21, 2007, 02:45:48 AM »

Quote from: vernal45 on October 19, 2007, 07:56:27 PM

A vote for Ron Paul to "send a message" is a vote for the Democrats.

Right, because the Neo-Con republicans are doing a whole hell of a lot better? Go with Democrats we welcome Socialized ~~Medi~~ ~~Welfa~~ ~~Educa~~ everything, go with Republicans and we end up with the whole give us your liberties and we will protect you schpeal. Welfare state or endless unnecessary wars who's only purpose is to encourage fear and strip liberties. Either way it will lead us to tyranny.

So you know what, I will vote for Ron Paul. I will go to my state's primary and be a delegate for him. I know the idea of currency actually having value is scary. Or the notion that you should only go to war when your country's defense actually requires it is unconceivable. Or how about the belief that people should be responsible for their own welfare and that governments purpose is extremely limited, that we don't need departments of education and other bloated bureaucracies because local governments can take care of those issues much more efficiently and with better representation.

Call him what ever you want, I could really care less. Call him crazy, because if Hillary and Rudy McRomney are the normal ones, I'll vote for the crazy man in a heartbeat.

Manedwolf · « **Reply #18 on:** October 21, 2007, 05:25:45 AM »

Quote from: Finch on October 21, 2007, 01:45:48 AM

Quote from: vernal45 on October 19, 2007, 07:56:27 PM

A vote for Ron Paul to "send a message" is a vote for the Democrats.

know the idea of currency actually having value is scary.

Petrodollar. Our dollar is traded worldwide. Limiting it to a domestically held commodity is hopelessly naive. It might have worked back in the 19th century, not now, when all transactions are electronic.

Just like the rest of Ron Paul's foreign policy...total moonbat stuff from another century.

Quote

Or how about the belief that people should be responsible for their own welfare

Kind of ironic, considering a lot of his most devoted loony followers showing up here are the professional hippie protester types who are ON welfare, and have no problem with getting arrested for not having a license and registration because they declare it's their "right" to drive. Down with The Man, man! They just want pot decriminalized, since that's their religion.

GigaBuist · « **Reply #19 on:** October 21, 2007, 05:24:16 PM »

Quote

Like I said, its your vote. A "sending a message vote" will end up with Hillary in the white house, maybe for longer that 1 term.

I wasn't aware that Hillary Clinton was in the Republican primary.

Now, if he does get the nomination will it still be throwing your vote away to vote for him in the general election? I thought we were supposed to just buck up and vote for the pro-gun Republican party candidate becuase, by God, anybody but Clinton!

Manedwolf · « **Reply #20 on:** October 21, 2007, 05:26:10 PM »

I just watched the debate tonight. What a shrill WHINER!

And the overwhelming boos from the audience, too...

Also, he made a deluded comment in the interview after, that "people in New Hampshire are opposed to the war"...HELL NO! I see "proud parent of a Marine" stickers on cars, no antiwar junk!

GigaBuist · « **Reply #21 on:** October 21, 2007, 05:46:54 PM »

Quote

Also, he made a deluded comment in the interview after, that "people in New Hampshire are opposed to the war"...HELL NO! I see "proud parent of a Marine" stickers on cars, no antiwar junk!

Well, y'all might want to take a look at what you're reps in the House are up to:

http://shea-porter.house.gov/list/press/nh01_shea-porter/end_iraq_war.html"" target="_blank">Shea-Porter Votes to Begin Ending Iraq War, March 23, 2007. Title pretty much says it all.

http://hodes.house.gov/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=1417"" target="_blank">Paul Hodes reacts to President Bush's Iraq War Speech, September 14, 2007:

Quote

In my judgment, we should immediately begin a strategic redeployment of our combat troops, and put in motion a diplomatic offensive to galvanize our allies and help stabilize the region. It is time to set our sights squarely on the threats posed by Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan. It is time for a foreign policy that will earn back the worlds respect and make our nation safer.

If folks from NH are pro-war they have a funny way of voting for it.

Manedwolf · « **Reply #22 on:** October 21, 2007, 05:50:00 PM »

Those two were put in by Mass transplants and people who were disgusted with the Republican scandals. And now people are disgusted with them.

Sununu is a lot more in line with people I know.

GigaBuist · « **Reply #23 on:** October 21, 2007, 06:24:55 PM »

Sununu's last electionw as before the Iraq invasion. Even his opponent, Jeanne Shaheen, was pro Iraq-war at the time.

Since then she's reversed her position and now http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/new_hampshire_senate_shaheen_d_48_sununu_43"" target="_blank">polls ahead of Sununu.

I wouldn't call saying "people in New Hampshire are opposed to the war" delusional. There's some evidence to support that conclusion.

Headless Thompson Gunner · « **Reply #24 on:** October 21, 2007, 06:40:25 PM »

Yeah yeah, vote for Ron Paul. Even though he's shrill and whiney. Even though his message falls somewhere between asinine and absurd. Even though he doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of winning. Even though he'd make a terrible President.

At least voting for Ron Paul will make you feel good, right?

Might as well stay home and masturbate. That's just as likely to influence national politics, and it'll make you feel better.

News:

Author Topic: I'm voting for Ron Paul (Read 33303 times)

Paddy