Log In | Register
GOLD RUST
I refuse to stop littering because then I'd be letting the eco-terrorists win.
Articles Posted: 6; Links Seeded: 1
Member Since: 4/2006Last Seen: 6/19/2008
Member Since: 4/2006Last Seen: 6/19/2008
46 Comments
Print
Ron Paul doing his famous Bush impression.
advertisement
Even though I consider myself more of a left winger than right, let's not kid ourselves - American politics don't really have much adversity. At least that's what I thought until I became aware of Ron Paul several months ago. Since then I've been following his campaign for president.
I'm sure most of you are aware of Ron Paul, but in case you aren't allow me sum up a few of his political views.
- He is a strictly libertarian constitutionalist.
- He adheres to a consistent life ethic - he's pro-life, but he is also against the death penalty, and strongly pacifist. He was one of the only republicans to vote against the Iraq war and has consistently condemned US presence in Iraq. And, even though he is pro-life, he doesn't believe the federal government has any authority to legalize or ban abortion.
- He co-sponsored a bill that would have given employees a greater ownership of their company.
- He believes the government should not touch the Internet, which has given him a disproportionate amount of support from web users. (From wikipedia: In 2006, a "Technology voter guide" by CNET awarded Paul a score of 80%, the highest score out of both houses of Congress. Paul has been criticized for voting against legislation to help catch online child predators, one of the votes used in the CNET guide. In response to critics, Paul said, "I have a personal belief that the responsibility of raising kids, educating kids and training kids is up to the parents and not the state. Once the state gets involved, it becomes too arbitrary." He also believed that the proposed law was unconstitutional.)
- He believes the federal government has no authority to define and recognizing marriage (i.e., in the case of same sex marriages).
- He believes that the government should not continue in the drug war, and that prohibition of substances like marijuana is ineffective and unconstitutional.
- He strongly believes in the right to be armed, and argues that the second amendment is not only for self-defense and hunting rights, but also a check against tyranny.
You can see Ron Paul in the republican debates here. I would strongly suggest watching it, and if you like what you see, there are a lot more videos there as well. (Links and some opinions on Dr. Paul can be found here.)
But, getting on to the point, several alarming things have happened in the past few days. MSNBC held a poll after the first debate, and Ron Paul did better than anyone else. The poll allowed you to cast a positive, negative, or neutral vote for each candidate. Ron Paul got the highest percentage of positive votes (38) and the lowest percentage of negative votes (26).
Positive Votes
1. Ron Paul (38%) 2. Mitt Romney (27%) 3. Rudy Giuliani (24%) 4. John McCain (19%) 5. Mike Huckabee (13%) 6. Tom Tancredo (9%) 7. Tommy Thompson (9%) 8. Sam Brownback (8%) 9. Duncan Hunter (8%) 10. Jim Gilmore (6%)
Negative Votes:
1. Sam Brownback (46%) 2. Tom Tancredo (45%) 3. Tommy Thompson (45%) 4. John McCain (44%) 5. Jim Gilmore (43%) 6. Duncan Hunter (43%) 7. Rudy Giuliani (42%) 8. Mike Huckabee (38%) 9. Mitt Romney (37%) 10. Ron Paul (26%)
However, despite the obvious, MSNBC then declared Romney the winner of the debate, while Paul wasn't even mentioned in the article.
ABC's poll showed Ron Paul wining by a landslide, and another MSNBC poll showed Ron Paul as the strongest candidate.
But despite all this, I couldn't find a single article on MSNBC or ABC talking about Ron Paul's success. But then I found this, an ABC article talking about his success in the polls.
But wait a minute, what happened to all the comments? The article has only one comment (as of now) - surely it would have more after how well he did in the polls? Well, it turns out ABC is deleting people's comments on the article. There used to be over 400. And I have a suspicion that ABC is now blocking other people from posting (at least I have been unsuccessful and so have others I know).
I realise that ABC can do whatever they wish with their site, but deleting hundreds of thoughtful posts seems arbitrary and wrong. I'm not sure why they would want to do this, even, but it just seemed so shocking I had to recount my experience on Newsvine.
Has anyone else heard anything about this?
74 Votes- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
Published to:
- Gold Rust's Column, All of Newsvine
- Groups: 2008: Ron Paul for President, Libertarians
- Regions: none
 | Defeat the Media Clones by Thomas E. Woods, Jr. | LewRockwell.com | Thu May 10 | 0 |
- Public Discussion (46)
- 2008: Ron Paul for President
- Libertarians
What's this?
Who's leading the conversation?
This visualization below allows you to see the impact that each user
has on the current conversation.
The top row contains the group of users who have had the most impact, the 2nd
row the group of users who have had the 2nd most impact (et cetera).
Users with similar impact are grouped together, and the average score of the group
is shown to the left of the group. The author of the article is also shown on the
left, in their corresponding group.
Each user's score is based on the number of comments the user has made plus the
number of votes their comments have received. The scores are calculated relative
one another, so while their absolute value is not particularly important, their
relative difference does indicate a larger difference in impact on the conversation.
15
10
9.1
{"commentId":696833,"authorDomain":"jaawalla"}
There's very little money to be made on the back of a Ron Paul candidacy, so I'm not surprised the media are stifling his message and publicity.
{"commentId":696833,"threadId":"101844","contentId":"709683","authorDomain":"jaawalla"}
- 9 votes
#1 - Thu May 10, 2007 12:15 AM EDT{"commentId":706653,"authorDomain":"newcreation"}
Exactly. All special interests are off the table when dealing with Paul, so there is obviously much interest in preventing his election. A strict constitutionalist in power is the worst thing that could happen for lobbyists.
{"commentId":706653,"threadId":"101844","contentId":"709683","authorDomain":"newcreation"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":696857,"authorDomain":"Henryvii"}
Fox News also planned to ban him from their May 15th debate, but have changed their decision due to viewer backlash. Honestly, Ron Paul is probably the only chance the Republicans have of winning this election.
{"commentId":696857,"threadId":"101844","contentId":"709683","authorDomain":"Henryvii"}
- 14 votes
#2 - Thu May 10, 2007 12:32 AM EDT{"commentId":697200,"authorDomain":"darkside"}
The neocons are on their way out, it's big business that's calling the shots and they're the ones that would suffer most from a libertarian in office. They'd fare better with a shill like Hillary Clinton. I like what I've seen of Ron Paul. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.
{"commentId":697200,"threadId":"101844","contentId":"709683","authorDomain":"darkside"}
- 8 votes
{"commentId":696864,"authorDomain":"cairdeas"}
It's simply because Ron Paul is dangerous. The media is not as much liberal or conservative, as much as it is statist. The media thrives on our new America ideal of Big government. The idea that the government needs to do more. And the media thrives on this.
The reason Ron Paul is so dangerous, is because he doesn't endorse that mind frame. His ideals are that of minimal interference and regulation. Something the media desparatley doesn't want being conveyed to the people.
{"commentId":696864,"threadId":"101844","contentId":"709683","authorDomain":"cairdeas"}
- 7 votes
#3 - Thu May 10, 2007 12:38 AM EDT{"commentId":696934,"authorDomain":"javaman83"}
Good article. I clipped it to the Ron Paul 2008 group, and the libertarian group for you.
{"commentId":696934,"threadId":"101844","contentId":"709683","authorDomain":"javaman83"}
- 2 votes
#4 - Thu May 10, 2007 1:21 AM EDT{"commentId":698417,"authorDomain":"goldrust"}
{"commentId":699311,"authorDomain":"javaman83"}
I don't see why not. It's a public group.
{"commentId":699311,"threadId":"101844","contentId":"709683","authorDomain":"javaman83"}
{"commentId":696947,"authorDomain":"javaman83"}
I truly believe Paul is the only person in the race so far who is deserving of being the president. I'm going to switch my registration to Republican (I'm a registered Libertarian), just so I can vote for him in the primary, and I know I'm not the only Libertarian who plans to do that.
{"commentId":696947,"threadId":"101844","contentId":"709683","authorDomain":"javaman83"}
- 7 votes
#5 - Thu May 10, 2007 1:27 AM EDT{"commentId":698041,"authorDomain":"bassburner"}
I'm another Libertarian turned Republican so I can vote for him too.
{"commentId":698041,"threadId":"101844","contentId":"709683","authorDomain":"bassburner"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":697206,"authorDomain":"darkside"}
{"commentId":697478,"authorDomain":"craig19"}
He has also called for a Constitutional amendment to end a 14th amendment provision granting automatic citizenship to children of illegal immigrants and voted "yes" on the Secure Fence Act of 2006.
He got an A+ rating from Gun Owners of America (GOA) who was described by Ron Paul as "The only no-compromise gun lobby in Washington".
He also wants a return to the gold standard. He voted against giving Rosa Parks the Congressional Gold Medal.
On January 22, 2007, Paul was the lone member out of 415 voting to oppose a House measure to create a National Archives exhibit on slavery and Reconstruction.
Of course he is also against a national health Care system or a single payer system.
I like Ron Paul. I just thought that I would open a few eyes of some liberals who like Paul because he is a maverick republican. The same way alot of Republicans like Joe Leiberman.
{"commentId":697478,"threadId":"101844","contentId":"709683","authorDomain":"craig19"}
- 9 votes
#8 - Thu May 10, 2007 10:24 AM EDT{"commentId":697543,"authorDomain":"darkside"}
Hehe, thanks for the reality check.
{"commentId":697543,"threadId":"101844","contentId":"709683","authorDomain":"darkside"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":697756,"authorDomain":"CaptFantasy"}
You can't maintain a welfare state and open borders. When that is gone, open borders don't matter as much.
Ron offered $100 dollars of his own money for Rosa's Gold metal. No one wanted to match his contribution. It is easy to be generous with someone elses money.
{"commentId":697756,"threadId":"101844","contentId":"709683","authorDomain":"CaptFantasy"}
- 6 votes
{"commentId":697905,"authorDomain":"bobfromseattle"}
Regarding "a return to the gold standard" and the left, I thought Anthony Gregory's post on the lewrockwell.com blog might help shed some light for the left-liberals who visit this site:
"The Left and the Fed"
Tom Woods is dead right on the Fed and the left.
For how much the left talks about corporate power, wealth in the hands of the few, monopolies and so forth, and how America funnels money from the poor to the rich, they sure do tend to be blind on the biggest corporate scam of all —- the monopoly in money itself.
Counterpunch is great on it. But even radicals like Chomsky who should know better have disregarded its importance, thinking that somehow Wal-Mart is a bigger corporate rip-off for average people than the Fed is.
Now, some on the left will never get it, or will never want to get it, since they love the state more than the poor and middle class. They might wish the war were a little less bungled, but the establishment left, if they knew how the Fed worked, would still probably favor it as a good way to pay for all their domestic Wilsonianism.
But the better anti-establishment leftists have every reason to be way better on this issue than the conservatives do. Without central banking, there goes the US empire, there goes national greatness, there goes the economic status quo that most the rightwing wants to conserve. Why would even the better leftists not get this at all?
Part of it is because free marketers don't explain it enough! Tom's piece had a single paragraph that would change some leftists' minds if they just read it. It explains the rip off. But a lot of supposed free marketers, conservatives and regime libertarians, would rather critique the Luxury Tax and the rent control causing housing shortages on Baltic Avenue than take on the game of Monopoly money itself. I've even heard some regimists boast that Greenspan was a libertarian, so look, our movement is mainstream after all! Barf. But even good guys avoid the issue. They think it's too arcane, or too weird, or too leftist- or kooky-sounding to challenge the banking system.
Also, a lot of people who do rail against the Fed don't understand anything. They think it's a private bank (which it is only insofar as all government is really to benefit private interests and individuals), implying that more government is the answer to our money woes, as if central banking can ever avoid enriching some at the expense of others. Or they think the Fed is a front for shape-shifting space aliens running it through the British Royal Family. (No offense to those out there who believe this, but it's not the best case against the Fed. Shape-shifters would have less power in a free market, and even normal humans will be corrupted by central banking power.) With such voices against the Fed, those of us who understand it and can explain it in less kooky ways should speak up!
I love talking to the left about the Fed, personally. They think they're for the people because they resent Starbucks? Whatever. Challenge the biggest scam of corporate crony capitalism of the last century -- come out for free banking and sound money, for the sake of the poor, middle-class, fixed-income folks being robbed at the register to pay for missiles and the banksters' high standard of living -- and then come back to me. But don't think you're a revolutionary because you boycott Ticket Master. Don't call me a corporate shill because I think this war is about more than oil. Read Rothbard's "Wall Street Banks and American Foreign Policy", and then you'll know what a real people's analysis of power relations and CEOs with bloodsoaked bottom lines looks like. If you don't hate the Fed, whether you're on the left, right or you're a libertarian, you either don't know what's going on, or you are just another supporter of the status quo of murderous imperialism and fascism, of padding the pockets of the world's most underserved rich with the sneakily expropriated labor of everyone else.
{"commentId":697905,"threadId":"101844","contentId":"709683","authorDomain":"bobfromseattle"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":697981,"authorDomain":"saltypig"}
He has also called for a Constitutional amendment to end a 14th amendment provision granting automatic citizenship to children of illegal immigrants and voted "yes" on the Secure Fence Act of 2006.
you're listing that as if it's a negative? odd. well, it would be much better if he voted to recognize that the 14th amendment was never ratified (truth). wonder how many opponents of fences own fences.
He got an A+ rating from Gun Owners of America (GOA)
not difficult when one follows the "bill of rights". problem?
He also wants a return to the gold standard. He voted against giving Rosa Parks the Congressional Gold Medal.
under the US constitution, there is no authority for printing paper money, nor for handing out medals such as to rosa parks. therefore, because of the "bill of rights" (10th amendment), any man sworn to support the US constitution has no rightful option but to oppose those illegal practices.
oppose a House measure to create a National Archives exhibit on slavery and Reconstruction.
show ron paul the delegated power in the US constitution authorizing such exhibits, and i'll bet he'll recant. short story: you cannot.
Of course he is also against a national health Care system or a single payer system.
of course. he swore to support the supreme law of the land.
so what, exactly, is so abhorrent to the self-proclaimed law-abiding that they'll bother even implying that explicit evidence of ron paul's integrity bears against him in any way? please explain. or at least never catch yourself complaining that something or someone has violated "the law". you've apparently made the normal mistake of budding socialists globally, which is to assume that if one opposes even only federal government involvement in a matter, he necessarily opposes voluntarily participation in that matter as well. it's perhaps the fundamental premise of your post, which, admittedly, doesn't come right out and say what it appears to wish. if you believe written law should be followed, then surely you cannot honestly begrudge or besmirch ron paul for attempting in almost all of his actions and rhetoric to do exactly that.
{"commentId":697981,"threadId":"101844","contentId":"709683","authorDomain":"saltypig"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":698246,"authorDomain":"Henryvii"}
Craig, you need to post context when you post these things. Libertarians will veto any bill that is spending money without good reason. Gold medals aren't free. Libraries aren't free.
{"commentId":698246,"threadId":"101844","contentId":"709683","authorDomain":"Henryvii"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":698271,"authorDomain":"emix"}
I like Ron Paul. I just thought that I would open a few eyes of some liberals who like Paul because he is a maverick republican.
@ CharleyHardman:
I don't think Craig's point was to besmirch Ron Paul. It was just to point out where he disagrees with a number of common liberal policies. A reality check, as Mykola says. The post wasn't meant to say, "these things about Ron Paul are immoral or unethical" but rather to say, "these aspects of Ron Paul's platform are problematic for his prospective liberal supporters."
{"commentId":698271,"threadId":"101844","contentId":"709683","authorDomain":"emix"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":698448,"authorDomain":"goldrust"}
{"commentId":698483,"authorDomain":"emix"}
A democrat as president in 2008 would change very little in this country, and a neocon would change even less. Ron Paul would change a lot.
Agreed.
Clearly Paul is absolutely not a liberal in any way. However, he does have some positions that those most disgusted with the current administration can get behind (liberals included). And at least there's a coherent logic behind his positions. I've been very impressed with him so far, though I disagree with him on a number of issues and I'm not sure I could vote for him.
Still, here's hoping he survives the primaries. He's a damn sight better than most of the other candidates on either side.
{"commentId":698483,"threadId":"101844","contentId":"709683","authorDomain":"emix"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":700688,"authorDomain":"ririaroo"}
Ron Paul would change a lot.
Exactly what this country needs.
{"commentId":700688,"threadId":"101844","contentId":"709683","authorDomain":"ririaroo"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":697815,"authorDomain":"bmcosti"}
For a self described left winger I must say I was impressed on your concern over the Media treatment of Ron Paul. It shows that you have principle regardless of politics.
{"commentId":697815,"threadId":"101844","contentId":"709683","authorDomain":"bmcosti"}
- 3 votes
#9 - Thu May 10, 2007 12:16 PM EDT{"commentId":697851,"authorDomain":"v-kend"}
To Craig19:
"He has also called for a Constitutional amendment to end a 14th amendment provision granting automatic citizenship to children of illegal immigrants"
What's wrong with this? Every other industrialized nation does not grant birthright citizenship. How do liberals plan on maintaining a welfare state and mass immigration? It doesn't work.
"voted "yes" on the Secure Fence Act of 2006."
Yes and so did Obama and Clinton.
"He voted against giving Rosa Parks the Congressional Gold Medal."
Yes because he believes this is no place for the government. At the same time he offered to get a group of Congressmen together and pay for a medal out of their own pockets.
"On January 22, 2007, Paul was the lone member out of 415 voting to oppose a House measure to create a National Archives exhibit on slavery and Reconstruction."
So what, do we really need this?
Ron Paul stands on PRINCIPLE and a man that does that is severely needed in this country. All the other candidates stand on politics.
A few things abour Ron Paul from his site.
Brief Overview of Congressman Paul's Record
He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.
He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.
{"commentId":697851,"threadId":"101844","contentId":"709683","authorDomain":"v-kend"}
- 8 votes
#10 - Thu May 10, 2007 12:28 PM EDT{"commentId":697866,"authorDomain":"v-kend"}
"He has also called for a Constitutional amendment to end a 14th amendment provision granting automatic citizenship to children of illegal immigrants"
We are the only industrialized nation to have this policy. It must end.
"voted "yes" on the Secure Fence Act of 2006."
So did Obama and Clinton.
"He voted against giving Rosa Parks the Congressional Gold Medal." and "voting to oppose a House measure to create a National Archives exhibit on slavery and Reconstruction."
Entirely consistent with principle.
{"commentId":697866,"threadId":"101844","contentId":"709683","authorDomain":"v-kend"}
#11 - Thu May 10, 2007 12:32 PM EDT{"commentId":697922,"authorDomain":"ajuranek"}
There is a Communications Chair and Professor at Fordham concerned about this same issue. His comments can be found here:
{"commentId":697922,"threadId":"101844","contentId":"709683","authorDomain":"ajuranek"}
#12 - Thu May 10, 2007 12:50 PM EDT{"commentId":698489,"authorDomain":"ForestBrowne"}
Hate to ruin the love in.....but there isn't a ghost of a chance the republicans would allow it. Besides his policies would set back our economy, raise the poverty level enormously and essentially put us back 100 years. And if your going to denote that ABC (and I don't care about ABC in the least bit), you should probably have some proof. I will stake my stance on the pudding he won't be making or eating.
On a lighter note is is nice to see Pubs grasping at straws.
Forest
{"commentId":698489,"threadId":"101844","contentId":"709683","authorDomain":"ForestBrowne"}
- 4 votes
#13 - Thu May 10, 2007 4:29 PM EDT{"commentId":698538,"authorDomain":"goldrust"}
{"commentId":701512,"authorDomain":"Henryvii"}
Set us back 100 years? Only according to a socialist.
{"commentId":701512,"threadId":"101844","contentId":"709683","authorDomain":"Henryvii"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":701615,"authorDomain":"ForestBrowne"}
Caught me Pharoh...I thought for sure no one would figure out I was a Socialist.
Forest
{"commentId":701615,"threadId":"101844","contentId":"709683","authorDomain":"ForestBrowne"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":698531,"authorDomain":"ewalrath-2001"}
I consider my politics to be anti-authoritarian, rather than libertarian. Generally this places me in the Green/Nader political wilderness. This time around I'm seriously considering Paul. This will make for a very dysfunctional display on my rear bumper: (Al Franken for Senate; Ron Paul for President), but I prefer him to the Hillary/Obama/Edwards/Richardson corporatocrats. Plus there is the added bonus of challenging the neo-conservatives on their home turf.
So far as concerns about Paul's economics, our current system of public funding for corporate costs and unwinnable wars is not exactly enriching us.
{"commentId":698531,"threadId":"101844","contentId":"709683","authorDomain":"ewalrath-2001"}
#14 - Thu May 10, 2007 4:49 PM EDT{"commentId":698548,"authorDomain":"kyleb"}
Man, I may switch registration (Libertarian) just to vote for Paul in the primaries. He may not win, and I don't agree with him on everything, but the man stands on principle, and that deserves a vote more than anything else.
{"commentId":698548,"threadId":"101844","contentId":"709683","authorDomain":"kyleb"}
- 2 votes
#15 - Thu May 10, 2007 4:55 PM EDT{"commentId":698837,"authorDomain":"craft-6"}
What would a Ron Paul presidency mean, in actual results (versus his particular ideas on Constitutionally limited government)?
No more occupation of Iraq.
No more undeclared wars.
No more warrantless spying on Americans.
No more locking people up and throwing away the key without a speedy public trial.
So far, so good for liberals/progressives. You would also see:
A balanced budget proposal with significant spending cuts and tax cuts, which would have trouble passing in Congress.
A lot of vetoes of spending and other bills coming out of Congress. The ones where he seems eccentric could be overridden easily, the others would require compromise.
Seems like a good tradeoff to me, and a lot better than we would see from Senator Clinton.
{"commentId":698837,"threadId":"101844","contentId":"709683","authorDomain":"craft-6"}
- 4 votes
#16 - Thu May 10, 2007 7:22 PM EDT{"commentId":699310,"authorDomain":"PamelaDrew"}
Very good article and comments thank you. Bob in Seattle, as a FED focused reader, you may like some of the monetary research by Catherine Austin Fitts.
{"commentId":699310,"threadId":"101844","contentId":"709683","authorDomain":"PamelaDrew"}
- 2 votes
#17 - Thu May 10, 2007 11:35 PM EDT{"commentId":700033,"authorDomain":"craig19"}
@ CharleyHardman:
I don't think Craig's point was to besmirch Ron Paul. It was just to point out where he disagrees with a number of common liberal policies. A reality check, as Mykola says. The post wasn't meant to say, "these things about Ron Paul are immoral or unethical" but rather to say, "these aspects of Ron Paul's platform are problematic for his prospective liberal supporters."
Thanks for getting my point. Others seem to have missed it. I may vote for Ron Paul.
{"commentId":700033,"threadId":"101844","contentId":"709683","authorDomain":"craig19"}
- 3 votes
#18 - Fri May 11, 2007 10:05 AM EDT{"commentId":702468,"authorDomain":"saltypig"}
CharleyHardman
Comment collapsed by the community
Comment collapsed by the community{"commentId":702618,"authorDomain":"darkside"}
CharleyHardman, if you keep that tone you're not going to be welcome around here much longer. I'm reporting your comment as inflammatory. Around here we like to discuss ideas, not dismiss entire philosophical schools as "socialist nitwit scumbags" or what have you.
{"commentId":702618,"threadId":"101844","contentId":"709683","authorDomain":"darkside"}
- 5 votes
{"commentId":701913,"authorDomain":"spookybf"}
...and he's a gynecologist!
{"commentId":701913,"threadId":"101844","contentId":"709683","authorDomain":"spookybf"}
#19 - Fri May 11, 2007 9:03 PM EDT{"commentId":703168,"authorDomain":"craig19"}
CharleyHardman, you certainly are a hard man. Take it easy. We are in total agreement politically I believe. Liberals and socialists like Ron Paul because he is one of the only Republicans in the house that opposed the Iraq War from the start. Other than that they obviously dont seem to know much about him. It seems that what you want is to see a bunch of liberals hoodwinked into voting for Paul for his anti-war stance regardless of his conservative stand on many other issues. I dont think that is going to happen even though he seemed to fool the writer of this article. I would like to see Ron Paul run as a third party Libertarian, which is his real home.
{"commentId":703168,"threadId":"101844","contentId":"709683","authorDomain":"craig19"}
- 1 vote
#20 - Sat May 12, 2007 3:03 PM EDT{"commentId":704895,"authorDomain":"Henryvii"}
I would rather see him win.
{"commentId":704895,"threadId":"101844","contentId":"709683","authorDomain":"Henryvii"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":703996,"authorDomain":"saltypig"}
We are in total agreement politically I believe.
no.
It seems that what you want is to see a bunch of liberals hoodwinked into voting for Paul for his anti-war stance
hardly. i don't support ron paul running at all, as i've written from the beginning on my blog. i also don't support you going obliquely at those violence-loving jackals, throwing out nuggets pandering to their usual ignorance. far too cutesy given what they force on others. they should be confronted at every turn, not fed fuel.
{"commentId":703996,"threadId":"101844","contentId":"709683","authorDomain":"saltypig"}
#21 - Sun May 13, 2007 4:56 AM EDT{"commentId":710746,"authorDomain":"wolfcoast"}
'Hardened' is trying to say that he is all about the hate and doesn't compromise amidst logic or sense of agreement. He wants blood, he's gotten plenty of it without penalty of mortal cost for public viewing, maybe he should enlist so he can witness it?
Maybe he's just a byproduct of an aggressive campaign to globalize and enforce a monetary system strictly on a super stretched dollar created from ink not precious metals.
Trade, not aggression will ensure trust. Trust self governs in the masses, 'hardened' needs that authority to script him. The Constitution is a script and is to be trusted as a Patriot defends it.
- Wolf
{"commentId":710746,"threadId":"101844","contentId":"709683","authorDomain":"wolfcoast"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":704187,"authorDomain":"craig19"}
What violence-loving jackals are you referring to? You are starting to get confusing now and showing signs of being on the lunatic fringe.
{"commentId":704187,"threadId":"101844","contentId":"709683","authorDomain":"craig19"}
#22 - Sun May 13, 2007 10:18 AM EDT{"commentId":766317,"authorDomain":"AG006"}
I agree with Paul on many of his points,but not on others, but he is getting slammed dunked by the republicans, who I think want to censor him or not include him in the debates or keep him from running. I say no to censorship!!!! Whether you love, him, hate him, agree, disagree, I say the man should be allowed to run and participate in upcoming debates and should not be prevented from running as a candidate.When that starts to happen, it seems like those who would prevent him from having his campaign or speaking have more sinister motives.That should not sit well with any of us..Let freedom ring. Amen
{"commentId":766317,"threadId":"101844","contentId":"709683","authorDomain":"AG006"}
#23 - Fri Jun 8, 2007 1:53 AM EDT{"commentId":766353,"authorDomain":"AG006"}
At least he does stand for the constitution.What we really need is money coming home and taking care of our own people. This war is costing us billions and there seems to be no end in sight, how will that fare fro us and future tax payers. I know that is not the only concern with this war, but it is impacting this whole country in a negative way.
{"commentId":766353,"threadId":"101844","contentId":"709683","authorDomain":"AG006"}
- 1 vote
#24 - Fri Jun 8, 2007 2:55 AM EDT{"commentId":766355,"authorDomain":"AG006"}
"So far as concerns about Paul's economics, our current system of public funding for corporate costs and unwinnable wars is not exactly enriching us." Good points Erich, we are just digging the whole deeper and deeper.
{"commentId":766355,"threadId":"101844","contentId":"709683","authorDomain":"AG006"}
#25 - Fri Jun 8, 2007 2:59 AM EDT{"commentId":1383802,"authorDomain":"edou"}
Lets send angrymails to medias if they do NOT show RP stories and photos from now on
They can't keep censoring a candidate when he got SECOND place in Nevada, this must stop!
{"commentId":1383802,"threadId":"101844","contentId":"709683","authorDomain":"edou"}
- 1 vote
#26 - Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:30 PM EST{"canLink":false,"threadId":"101844","isPrivate":false}
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
Start Tracking
Stop TrackingCOMPANY STUFF:
LEGAL STUFF:
- © 2005-2009 Newsvine, Inc. |
- Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
- Newsvine is a property of
