drug policy, foreign policy/interventionism/occupation, not attacking iran, corporate welfare and especially civil liberties issues like warrantless wiretapping, indefinite detention, military arresting u.s. citizens, sopa, tsa groping. i say that knowing that most democrats dont really give a crap about civil liberties issues (at least when we have a democrat president), but to me its probably the single most important issue facing this country and our future. obama supporters continually go around saying how dangerous and crazy a paul presidency would be while ignoring who dangerous and crazy an obama presidency has actually been. and alot of liberals hate obamas government and will not be supporting him. if obama loses the election the biggest factor will be his betrayal of fundamental liberal ideals like civil liberties. i think there is quite a bit of evidence in this forum that would prove otherwise. nobody is forcing you to read and respond to all those posts. im a ron paul supporter, but i dont really pay attention to toyotacenter. he doesnt effect me in any way. you only make it an issue for yourself when you respond to him. i disagree. ron paul would steal a big chunk of the youth vote that went to obama in 2008. independents. left leaning liberals who are disappointed in obama. ive never claimed paul is the only candidate that could win. infact, ive stated since last year that obama will get another 4 years...but, i do believe that a paul would do as good as or better than perot if he did run 3rd party and it would be a move that would lay the groundwork for the future. i would love a paul/kucinich ticket - the two pariahs of their respective parties.
jo mama, you know I have the greatest respect for you, but you couldn't be more wrong about the impact of a Paul third party candidacy. It would insure an Obama victory. Yes, some liberal votes, like yours, would go to Dr. Paul, and some independents, like you, but the vast majority of his voters would be Republicans upset about the nominee of their party, should that nominee be Romney or Gingrich, and it appears that it will be one or the other. Tell you what... want to make a $20 tipjar bet? If Dr. Paul runs on a 3rd party ticket and the Republican nominee wins, I owe Clutch $20 bucks. If Dr. Paul runs and Obama wins, you do. -
I'd love to see Ron Paul run as a 3rd party candidate. Typically, major party candidates will adopt some of the positions of the 3rd party candidate to pick up swing voters. Obama may pick up some of Paul's positions on non-interference and civil liberty, but ignore the whacked out 'the free market will fix everything' bull****.
This ABC interview with Gingrich might be longer than a soundbite, but it's well worth watching. I've been trying to imagine Romney sitting with a reporter in the same setting, being asked similar questions, and pulling it off the way Gingrich did. For your viewing pleasure: <img style="visibility:hidden;width:0px;height:0px;" border=0 width=0 height=0 src="http://c.gigcount.com/wildfire/IMP/CXNID=2000002.11NXC/bT*xJmx*PTEzMjc4NzQwMDMwNzAmcHQ9MTMyNzg3NDAxNDU4MiZwPSZkPSZnPTImbz1hNmY2MzVjM2ZkYmU*ODMxOGRlZDAwZDhi/Y2QxMmNlZCZvZj*w.gif" /><object name="kaltura_player_1327874011" id="kaltura_player_1327874011" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowScriptAccess="always" allowNetworking="all" allowFullScreen="true" height="221" width="392" data="http://cdnapi.kaltura.com/index.php/kwidget/wid/1_kh446fom/uiconf_id/5590821"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowNetworking" value="all" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="bgcolor" value="#000000" /><param name="movie" value="http://cdnapi.kaltura.com/index.php/kwidget/wid/1_kh446fom/uiconf_id/5590821"/><param name="flashVars" value="autoPlay=false&screensLayer.startScreenOverId=startScreen&screensLayer.startScreenId=startScreen"/><a href="http://corp.kaltura.com">video platform</a><a href="http://corp.kaltura.com/video_platform/video_management">video management</a><a href="http://corp.kaltura.com/solutions/video_solution">video solutions</a><a href="http://corp.kaltura.com/video_platform/video_publishing">video player</a></object>
Have you ever noticed that when more people pay attention to Ron, like his supporters want, his support still doesn't go up beyond his core supporters? Any theories?
Support from whom? <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/HZYiIwb-aEI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> You have to understand, in a debate that took place back in October or November, Ron Paul only received 89 seconds of debate time, and yet still won the debate according to many people. The MSM and TPTB didn't expect Paul to still be in the race. He is a threat to the stratus-quo, if he were to get elected alot of government would receive huge pay cuts either due to their department getting discarded or they transfer positions in government to a lower paying job title. NO ONE in the government really wants this guy as POTUS. CNN receives huge funding from companies who do not want Ron Paul to be eletected, which is why out of the 4 candidates he is the least talked about (until they mention the raciest newsletters.) Did you happen to catch Erin Burnett's show last Thursday night before the debate? They couldn't hear each other because of the Ron Paul supporters. My point is, not of the amount of supporters (young people) he has, but there is going to come a time and it's happening now where they have to give him more time. They don't have to like it, but if they keep shutting him out, they will receive backlash from his supporters. It's either Ron Paul 2012 or Obama 2012, not because Ron's supporters will vote for Obama, but because they will NOT vote at all. Voting for the less of 2 evils is not what they want. A vote for freedom is a vote for freedom. He is receiving promising numbers as he feels he will be a front runner in Maine, he has receiving over 50% in the polls in Tennessee even after they endorsed Santorum in that state, and he has won the strawpolls in AZ as well. He will pull in 40% roughly of hispanic voters in Florida without even spending much money campaigning. I think he is doing the right thing, and his message is moving people. You will have your question answered soon as more and more people will flock to Ron. Ron IS the alternative to Roney/Obama.
I stopped reading after this BS. No one in any debate received 89 seconds of time. That's less than one question and one rebuttal. They get half that much time in introductions. I know you believe in pretty much everything that isn't true (aliens, Bigfoot, Ron Paul isn't a lunatic, etc.) but I'm curious... Do you believe in anything that is?
Hey Batman Jones, Are you interested in a ticket for the Feb 17th Minny game when SmeggySmeg is in town? I suppose you've seen the threads, but recall you usually answer behind the scenes. email me through through the bbs if interested. Also, we are doing a suite for Utah, and Clutch might join in.
Thanks HP, but I'm opening a play that night (Endgame by Samuel Beckett). Maybe Utah, need to check the calendar. Would love to see you and Joe and Clutch.
I was trying to be reasonable, Batman, and wanted to allow jo mama to place a bet on his guy, if he cares to. But yeah, I get the point, which was my point.
Let me clarify... The debate was an hour and a half. They televised 1 hour of it. Of the 1 hour, 89 seconds was given to Ron Paul to speak. Got it? <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/wSrF6qPFVbs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Is this a Ron Paul/UFO supporter talking down to me? Your facts were wrong as they always are. You said he got 89 seconds of the debate. That wasn't true. So yes, I "got it." You're a dumbass. If you want people to read your posts, stop lying. There's at least one lie or inaccuracy in basically every single Paul post you put up here. You're ruining a perfectly good thread on one of my favorite subjects. I wiped my ignore list clean about a year ago, but it looks like it's time to open it up again. Congrats. You're the first one to the party.
Facts are facts. Ask 99.973873957% of Americans who saw the debate, and ask them how much time in which they saw the Doctor speak. Ask the audience in attendance and apparently I'm wrong. Do you know how much time he got in the other 30 minutes that wasn't televised? because I don't.
So, is the argument that Ron Paul would be a viable candidate if he got more time to speak at the debates, or is it that there is a massive conspiracy against Ron Paul to prevent him from presenting his ideas to the public?
