Reasons for Republicans to Vote Paul

[The Judge]

The Conserative Voice
By: Allan Holm
December 16, 2007

Ron Paul is going to win the nomination of the Republican Party or the party is going to lose in the general election. Take that as a guarantee. One I would bet money on. Now knowing that, how many of you Bush devotees are going to hold your nose and vote for him in the primaries? Are you loyal to the Republican Party and want the party to win, or hate Ron Paul more than Hillary?

Ron Paul is a social conservative Constitutionalist; think if that when it comes to the Supreme Court. He would bring fiscal responsibility to the Whitehouse. VETO! He is an anti-abortion, anti-socialized healthcare, anti-tax, Christian conservative who has been married for fifty years. And has had tons of life long Democrats switching their party affiliation on the war issue alone to vote for him. Are we that devoted to a war that has no ?good? ending anyway?

If he doesn?t win the nomination you are throwing your vote away. It is that simple. Because if he does not win it, we who have held our noses and endorsed the elitist?s Bush are going to vote with him, even if that means the Libertarian Party, (who might seek Pat Buchanan if Ron Paul won?t accept it, with Ron Paul as his vice-president). The 400,000 member Constitution Party is seeking Ron Paul as well, and whomever he endorsed for President is going to get millions of dollars from his supporters. If that is not the Republican Party, the Party will lose, regardless of James Dobson and his third party threat if Giuliani or Romney wins. The scenario that gave us Bill Clinton, and Woodrow Wilson, is lining up again and it is your fault, not Ron?s, if Bill gets access to the Oval Office amenities again. Our Ross Perot is on your ticket.

The ideal scenario for a third party in 08? is if Hillary is the D. liberal and Giuliani is the R. liberal with a Ron Paul third party. Things in this country could be looking UP! Paul is the Jeffersonian candidate running for office in 2008.

?I am for preserving to the states the powers not yielded by them to the union; and for preventing the further encroachment of the executive branch on the rightful powers of congress. I am for a government rigorously frugal and simple, and for retiring the national debt, eliminating the standing army, and relying on the militia to safeguard internal security, and keeping the navy small, lest it drag the nation into eternal wars. I am for free commerce with all nations, political connections with none?. I am for freedom of religion, and for freedom of the press. And against all violations to the Constitution to silence our citizens? - Thomas Jefferson on his positions for the 1800 election.

 

[The Judge]

Finally, a Reason to Vote, Ron Paul
Hal O'Boyle
December 17, 2007

I?ve written before about the voting scam, about the delusions of power it gives to members of a well trained herd, about the lack of any real choice in most elections.

When PR hacks and hairstylists create the only differences between candidates, voting simply encourages the dissembling, grasping, power mongers we elect to think we approve of every indignity, larceny, and insult to our intelligence they dream up while in office.

The idea that political freedom is the right to choose between two empty-headed career liars, each of whom bids for your vote with your money, is a fantasy that best serves those who want nothing so much as power. Those who equate voting with freedom are like caged monkeys who believe they are free because they get to choose who brings them the bananas.

From the view of an enthusiast for political liberty, constitutional government and free markets, there are no differences between Democrats and Republicans. It simply comes down to who gets looted and who gets the loot. And among members of the same party, the idea of a debate is almost laughable. That?s why I don?t watch televised debates nor pay much attention to who is declared the ?winner.?

Out of the blue someone sent me a link to a YouTube video of a portion of the Republican candidate debates held on May 3. The clip featured remarks by Ron Paul, longtime libertarian congressman from Texas, now running for the Republican presidential nomination.

Paul is an unassuming geezer, but what he was saying was like political pornography. I couldn?t tear myself away. I was stunned that FCC goons handn't dragged him off the stage. This stuff just isn?t allowed on regular TV. Paul was like a hooker at Tupperware party suggesting fun ways to use your salad spinner. He left the rest of the field gaping, checking their perfect haircuts, shuffling 3x5 cards, and hoping he would stop sounding so Regeanesque.

Eliminate the IRS? Dump the Fed? Who is this guy?

Ron Paul was saying things that politicians never say. Things that Americans know are true. Dr. Paul was speaking truth to power, and he spoke it with genuine conviction and a deep understanding of the issues. He didn?t need little cards to remind him of his principles. He knew them by heart.

He used words you would think were banned judging by the number of times you hear them in mainstream political discussion, words like ?limited government,? ?constitutional principles,? ?sound money,? and ?defending liberty.? He is the rarest of politicians, a man of principle who speaks and lives those principles.

Of those who had a chance, Representative Paul was the only candidate who voted against the war in Iraq. He was the only one who suggested ending it as soon as possible.

Dr. Paul voted against the Patriot Act and its sweeping destruction of civil liberties. He pledged unshakable respect for the right of habeas corpus and opposition to a national ID. He has never voted for a tax increase, or for any raise in congressional pay or perks. He has never gone on a congressional junket.

Congressman Paul has never voted for a gun control proposal or any law that conflicts with the U.S. Constitution. Lobbyists don?t bother visiting his office. The 72 year-old Paul probably couldn?t lift a sack filled with the Taxpayer's Friend awards he has received from the National Taxpayer?s Union.

When asked if he would eliminate the IRS he said, ?Immediately.? He spoke the words ?honest money? right out loud and showed he knew what that meant.

The mainstream media have Congressman Paul pegged as a dangerous crank and ?unelectable.? We know this by the effort they are putting into ignoring him and his crushing victory in the May 3rd and subsequent debates.

According to every poll taken after the debates, Paul was the clear favorite of the American people. Not a single news outlet mentioned his victory, let alone by what a huge margin he had won.

An MSNBC poll showed Paul a with over 40% of the vote in every approval category, more than doubling his next closest rival in each. I?ll bet this is the first you heard of it. MSNBC has hardly mentioned the poll. You can find it at HERE.

Polls by ABC and CSPAN showed similar lop-sided results favoring Rep. Paul, that were quickly dropped or ignored. ABC failed to even mention that Paul was a candidate then deleted thousands of complaints about it from its public bulletin boards.

I am not surprised the mainstream media are so intent on suppressing Ron Paul's message. The media does not favor getting the government out of our lives, nor destroying the IRS, nor returning to the foreign policy the founders recommended, that of minding our own business. Those goals, however, clearly appeal to many politically active, thinking, voting Americans.

I am hopeful the media will fail in their efforts to undermine the political process. I am delighted and grateful that for the first time in my voting life have a genuine choice in a candidate for President and a reason to vote. Congressman Ron Paul.

 

[Mahoney]

Ron Paul raised $6 million yesterday. Remarkable.

59,170 donors averaging $102

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2007-12-17-ronpaul-fundraising_N.htm

 

[Cie]

:yup



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.

 

[Jabberwocky]

I like him, but I can see why he scares the crap out of the big government, deficit spending, unlimited exec power, pro-war "Republicans."

 

[escarzamd]

An MSNBC poll showed Paul a with over 40% of the vote in every approval category, more than doubling his next closest rival in each. I?ll bet this is the first you heard of it. MSNBC has hardly mentioned the poll.

Didn't know.....felt it though.

History does repeat itself.....heretic, crackpot, insurrectionist!!!....the media can't smear the guy!!! So they just ignore him (I saw Nick Fawking Lachey more times on tv yest.), because the only part of him in any way sensational is the platform, which is a bit high-browed for mainstream media content.

P.S.......also loved that political pornography line

 

[gardenweasel]

the guy has some good theories...like,"I believe if we leave the Middle East, they'll leave us alone".....

i guess it`s possible that if we let hitler have poland, france, norway, and england, he would have left us alone....

gold standard?....no country on earth has a currency backed by precious metals...and it`s never going to happen again because the global economy's much too large for that nonsense....

the guy`s a nut,and maybe even dangerous....
the plausible presentation of oversimplified half-baked ideas to people who do not recognize the oversimplification is how the troofer movement got started.....

and if you notice,many of the "troofers" in this forum are in the ron paul calvacade.....

no coincidence...

 

[Nosigar]

and if you notice,many of the "troofers" in this forum are in the ron paul calvacade.....

no coincidence...

:dizzy: :yup

 

[Mahoney]

the guy has some good theories...like,"I believe if we leave the Middle East, they'll leave us alone".....

i guess it`s possible that if we let hitler have poland, france, norway, and england, he would have left us alone....

and if you notice,many of the "troofers" in this forum are in the ron paul calvacade.....

no coincidence...

Have you checked your pantry for terrorists, weasel? They like to hide behind the cereal boxes. Be warned. You can never be too careful.

 

[bryanz]

the guy has some good theories...like,"I believe if we leave the Middle East, they'll leave us alone".....

i guess it`s possible that if we let hitler have poland, france, norway, and england, he would have left us alone....

gold standard?....no country on earth has a currency backed by precious metals...and it`s never going to happen again because the global economy's much too large for that nonsense....

the guy`s a nut,and maybe even dangerous....

the plausible presentation of oversimplified half-baked ideas to people who do not recognize the oversimplification is how the troofer movement got started.....

and if you notice,many of the "troofers" in this forum are in the ron paul calvacade.....

no coincidence...

What country was Iraq going to take over ? What country had they invaded or could have invaded that would have put a America in a position worse than we are in now.. I love your spin, what do you call the movement that is going on right now, that you and others blindly march step by step too ? Is it not funny that your leader is on tv today talking about an alternative energy policy ? Bush has lived in the white house for 7 yrs and has done nothing about energy. What a joke ! Our energy independence is the key for America to stop funding terrorist. This president should have played hard ball with the middle east, instead he never opened a history book and lead us into a ground war we can't win. Mr president, I hear you, the rest of the world hears you and most of us our laughing for different reasons, some of us are crying because it didn't have to be this way.

 

[gardenweasel]

What country was Iraq going to take over ? What country had they invaded or could have invaded that would have put a America in a position worse than we are in now.. I love your spin, what do you call the movement that is going on right now, that you and others blindly march step by step too ? Is it not funny that your leader is on tv today talking about an alternative energy policy ? Bush has lived in the white house for 7 yrs and has done nothing about energy. What a joke ! Our energy independence is the key for America to stop funding terrorist. This president should have played hard ball with the middle east, instead he never opened a history book and lead us into a ground war we can't win. Mr president, I hear you, the rest of the world hears you and most of us our laughing for different reasons, some of us are crying because it didn't have to be this way.

well,they tried to take over kuwait`s oil fields.......and had a small set to with iran....

and i believe they lobbed scuds into israel(as israel held their water) to try and start ww3 as they were forcibly pushed out of kuwait....

they made a feeble attempt at the genocide of the kurds.....

i guess thats not much in the most volatile,important region in the world...

we`re in a terrible position today?...you aren`t talikng iraq or afghanistan...the surge has al qaeda on the outs and the homies cooperating.......

in afghanistan the taliban is no longer in power...they`re hiding in the weeds and don`t control the afghani gov`t.....

energy policy?...all we have to do is drill off our own coasts (like the chinese are doing,off OUR coasts)...build a few nuclear reactors......and we can be much less dependent during the time we are searching for an alternative.....

that makes a hell of a lot more sense than banning incandescent lightbulbs.....

oh!...i`m sorry......you`re talking about a potential shrillery presidency?.......i`m with you there,partner....that`s a gnarly position to be in...:mj06:

 

[Jabberwocky]

"well,they tried to take over kuwait`s oil fields.......and had a small set to with iran....

and i believe they lobbed scuds into israel(as israel held their water) to try and start ww3 as they were forcibly pushed out of kuwait....

they made a feeble attempt at the genocide of the kurds....."

They were kicked out of Kuwait a decade before the invasion, the only time they were at war with Iran was when we were backing Saddam, and yet you constantly make Hitler comparisons and WW2 analogies?

:00x12

 

[Jabberwocky]

How much longer you figure we need to "surge" in Iraq before we can get the hell out of there? 2 years, 10 years, 1000 years? Anyday now there will be a McDonalds on every corner and a coke in the hand of every Iraqi. All hail George Bush, the brilliant visionary. (I wonder why his father told Schwarzkopf to turn back when they could have stormed Baghdad and toppled Saddam? Oh thats right, unlike his idiot son, he understood what a disaster an occupation of Iraq would be.)

Afghanistan 'falling into hands of Taliban'

Richard Norton-Taylor
Thursday November 22, 2007

The Taliban has a permanent presence in 54% of Afghanistan and the country is in serious danger of falling into Taliban hands, according to a report by an independent thinktank with long experience in the area.
Despite tens of thousands of Nato-led troops and billions of dollars in aid poured into the country, the insurgents, driven out by the American invasion in 2001, now control "vast swaths of unchallenged territory, including rural areas, some district centres, and important road arteries", the Senlis Council says in a report released yesterday.

On the basis of what it calls exclusive research, it warns that the insurgency is also exercising a "significant amount of psychological control, gaining more and more political legitimacy in the minds of the Afghan people who have a long history of shifting alliances and regime change".

It says the territory controlled by the Taliban has increased and the frontline is getting closer to Kabul - a warning echoed by the UN which says more and more of the country is becoming a "no go" area for western aid and development workers.

The council goes as far as to state: "It is a sad indictment of the current state of Afghanistan that the question now appears to be not if the Taliban will return to Kabul, but when ... and in what form. The oft-stated aim of reaching the city in 2008 appears more viable than ever and it is incumbent upon the international community to implement a new strategic paradigm before time runs out."

Its 110-page report coincides with an equally severe warning from Oxfam. In a report for the House of Commons International Development Committee the humanitarian and aid agency warns that the security situation in Afghanistan is deteriorating significantly with the country's problems exacerbated by corruption in central and local government.

Senior British and US military commanders privately agree despite their public emphasis on short-term successes against Taliban fighters.

The insurgency is divided into a largely poverty-driven "grassroots" component and a concentrated group of "hard-core militant Islamists", says the Senlis Council, which has an office in Kabul and field researchers based in Helmand and Kandahar provinces in southern Afghanistan.

It says that the Nato-led International Security Force of some 40,000 troops should be at least doubled and include forces from Muslim countries as well as Nato states which have refused to send troops to the country.

There is no sign of any move within Nato to send reinforcements to Afghanistan.

While western governments, like the Senlis Council and Oxfam, are increasingly concerned about the lack of effectiveness of President Hamid Karzai's government, there is no agreement about how to solve the problems.

Oxfam warns that urgent action is needed to avert humanitarian disaster in Afghanistan where millions face "severe hardship comparable with sub-Saharan Africa". Though the country has received more than $15bn (?7.5bn) in aid since 2001, the money is not getting to projects which could lead to sustained improvements in people's lives, says Oxfam.

It adds that at least 1,200 civilians have been killed so far this year, half in operations by international or Afghan forces. It notes there are four times as many air strikes by international forces in Afghanistan than in Iraq.

The Senlis Council wants Nato forces, and their Provincial Reconstruction Teams, to take on a bigger role distributing aid and Oxfam says the military should stick to providing security.

 

[Jabberwocky]

sorry Judge, this was supposed to be a Ron Paul thread. I guess the only relevance is that Ron Paul would never have invaded Iraq.

 

[gardenweasel]

How much longer you figure we need to "surge" in Iraq before we can get the hell out of there?

of course,we should pull out right now....while things are going extremely well......what better way to ensure defeat and give iran the foothold they long for.....

that`s not the crux of the issue,though.....what`s important is that defeat may help the dems win in 08`....

everything else is just fluff...

 

[bryanz]

well,they tried to take over kuwait`s oil fields.......and had a small set to with iran....

and i believe they lobbed scuds into israel(as israel held their water) to try and start ww3 as they were forcibly pushed out of kuwait....

they made a feeble attempt at the genocide of the kurds.....

i guess thats not much in the most volatile,important region in the world...

we`re in a terrible position today?...you aren`t talikng iraq or afghanistan...the surge has al qaeda on the outs and the homies cooperating.......

in afghanistan the taliban is no longer in power...they`re hiding in the weeds and don`t control the afghani gov`t.....

energy policy?...all we have to do is drill off our own coasts (like the chinese are doing,off OUR coasts)...build a few nuclear reactors......and we can be much less dependent during the time we are searching for an alternative.....

that makes a hell of a lot more sense than banning incandescent lightbulbs.....

oh!...i`m sorry......you`re talking about a potential shrillery presidency?.......i`m with you there,partner....that`s a gnarly position to be in...:mj06:

there is nothing left to say, you don't get it !

 

[Jabberwocky]

How much longer you figure we need to "surge" in Iraq before we can get the hell out of there?

of course,we should pull out right now....while things are going extremely well......what better way to ensure defeat and give iran the foothold they long for.....

that`s not the crux of the issue,though.....what`s important is that defeat may help the dems win in 08`....

everything else is just fluff...

back to the same old bs mantra? The dems are invested in defeat. Just jingoistic nonsense.

 

[gardenweasel]

back to the same old bs mantra? The dems are invested in defeat. Just jingoistic nonsense.

relax my brotha`...it will all be over soon.....8 years of shrillery on the horizon.....that should be some consolation to the "a-paul-ing" crew...

unless he runs as a 3rd party candidate....`cause i think he may s(i)yphon off more moonbats than conservatives...just look at this site as an indicator...

will it be enough to queer the deal for hillary?...probably not...particularly if huckabee gets the nomination...then nothing can help the republicans...

things look about as bright for my side as a diamond in a dog's ass on a moonless night.......

i hope you`re getting some satisfaction from my pain....that comforts me a bit...`cause i think you`re a good guy deep down and you`ll grow out of this "phase"...

merry christmas,my man...

 

[gardenweasel]

another reason to vote paul in "08"....

pirates!

 

[bryanz]

relax my brotha`...it will all be over soon.....8 years of shrillery on the horizon.....that should be some consolation to the "a-paul-ing" crew...

unless he runs as a 3rd party candidate....`cause i think he may s(i)yphon off more moonbats than conservatives...just look at this site as an indicator...

will it be enough to queer the deal for hillary?...probably not...particularly if huckabee gets the nomination...then nothing can help the republicans...

things look about as bright for my side as a diamond in a dog's ass on a moonless night.......

i hope you`re getting some satisfaction from my pain....that comforts me a bit...`cause i think you`re a good guy deep down and you`ll grow out of this "phase"...

merry christmas,my man...

lift your head up sucker, I don't think hillary is going to win, the American people want change, at least they say they do. A vote for mrs. clinton is a vote for more of the same. if we are going to get change we need to eliminate hillary,mitt and rudy just to get the ball rolling down the hill.