Anti-Ron Paul propaganda

[Mars]

Strippers for Ron Paul--

This woman sounds like shes mocking Ron Paul by saying she strips for him. And MSNBC allows her to speak on their airwaves.

[BrucePrime]

I think Ron Paul supporters generate their own Anti-Ron Paul propaganda.

Ron Paul is becoming the Republican version of Lyndon LaRouche.

[tnr]

I don't like the main-stream media, they don't like Ron Paul, he doesn't like bad people.

[Unlimited]

obamas got a girl..why not ron paul strippers?..what a political system we have..

[Stalker]

Hell, ANY kind of Ron Paul propoganda would be helpful to him. The guy just isn't getting attention from the media.....

[Atheist God]

I don't like the main-stream media, they don't like Ron Paul, he doesn't like bad people.

It's true they don't like him but not because he's a bad guy but because he is a good guy who tells the truth people these days simply don't want to hear. Paul should be hailed as a hero politician who actually does believe he works for the people as opposed for himself. If he were elected he would represent Americans not himself and thats what separates him from Guiliani, McCain, Clinton or Obama.

When the news media focuses on who's not 'black' enough, 'Christian' enough or even 'woman' enough and pseudo social issues you should be scared for your democracy is on the brink. When the people are dumbed down so much that they prefer celebrity news over real news it is time to start re-evaluating the current situation.

Ron Paul is the one man running for president who really cares about the state of the nation and it's people yet he still hasn't a hope in hell of winning. For those who nay say him you should be ashamed of your selves or grow a half a brain cause this man is the best thing that could happen to America.

[Startraveler]

What's interesting to me is that in another thread I just conducted a small number of informal polls (which remain open, by the way) of this forum's browsers. According to them, the number one thing people are interested in when it comes to the presidential candidates is their position on the issues. By far. Further, the top four issues were identified as being 1) the economy/poverty/economic inequality 2) Education 3) Government Ethics/Corruption/Public Financing of Campaigns and 4) Health Care, in that order. And yet, judging from his issues page, Ron Paul doesn't have much to say about any of those. Besides vague talk of reductions in both taxes and spending, some stuff in support of homeschooling, and expressing support for expanding the "ability of Americans to use alternative medicine and new treatments."

[Unlimited]

The one thing ron paul isnt; that the other republicans are.. is an imperialist..he thinks we should bring the troops home and work on america! and follow the constitution..unlike now..theres an invasion on the southern border it equates to a war...the president is sworn to defend the nation from invasion. plain and simple and the "duty" is being neglected...

[EmpressStarXVII]

Fox News aired Girls for Obama and Gulliani ...pillow fighting .

[Atheist God]

The one thing ron paul isnt; that the other republicans are.. is an imperialist..he thinks we should bring the troops home and work on america! and follow the constitution..unlike now..theres an invasion on the southern border it equates to a war...the president is sworn to defend the nation from invasion. plain and simple and the "duty" is being neglected...

I agree it is the duty of any leader to protect national sovereignty and interests.

Presidents over the last 30 years have encouraged Mexicans to illegally cross the border and work dirt cheap because this lowers the standards for everyone else creating a permanent lower class. While you can't blame Mexicans for wanting to live in the USA allowing anyone who crosses the border to stay is an act of treason and should handled in the court of law accordingly.

Fox News aired Girls for Obama and Gulliani huh.gif...pillow fighting rolleyes.gif.

It was also on CNN and MSNBC.....

The above is really part of the problem singing about pseudo social issues and burning one another etc.

[recon_soldier]

The Military Industrial complex and the globalist elites are scared of Dr. Ron Paul.

Heck if I was doing the evil they are I too would be scared of someone who wants to put my activities into the public arena.

But screw it, go and vote for No options of the table Hillary or Obama hussein.

You all have your opinions on Iran(q), But Can you even locate it on a unlabled map?

Heck studies have proven that the Brainwashing is basically complete over there, Most of your next generation dont even know who the Vice President Dick Cheadney is.

-.- My rant is over.

Edited August 31, 2007 by recon_soldier

[banunpatriotact]

What's interesting to me is that in another thread I just conducted a small number of informal polls (which remain open, by the way) of this forum's browsers. According to them, the number one thing people are interested in when it comes to the presidential candidates is their position on the issues. By far. Further, the top four issues were identified as being 1) the economy/poverty/economic inequality 2) Education 3) Government Ethics/Corruption/Public Financing of Campaigns and 4) Health Care, in that order. And yet, judging from his issues page, Ron Paul doesn't have much to say about any of those. Besides vague talk of reductions in both taxes and spending, some stuff in support of homeschooling, and expressing support for expanding the "ability of Americans to use alternative medicine and new treatments."

I think you are missing his point entirely. These issues are up to state governments, not the Federal government. If he gets rid of the fraud of America, the federal reserve, we will all be in a better position to take care of ourselves and our communities anyway. If you're under the assumption that America is free, then you have been misled by the banking cartels who yes, own the media. I know that sounds cliche but it's very true. They are doing a great job with their propaganda as well. You should always go to the source of the information to understand where their interests are.

Regardless of the issues, without freedom we won't have any voice on the issues that you and I, everyone cares about. I've always considered myself a liberal but I decided that I will vote for Ron Paul because first and foremost we must protect our civil rights and liberties.

Edited August 31, 2007 by banunpatriotact

[Mars]

There was an internet poll recently and Ron Paul is winning by a landslide

[banunpatriotact]

Ron Paul video, awesome!

[el midgetron]

There was an internet poll recently and Ron Paul is winning by a landslide

He cleans up in most internet polls, at least the ones that are legit.

Ron Paul has something no other candidate has, grass roots support. Most voters who are for Obama, Rudy or Hillary are voting for their party or some buzz issue. Ron's base is made of people who believe in him and his platform, no media snow-job or tribalism needed. Does grass roots support mean anything? Not against billion dollar corporate sponsorship and herds of mindless followers of the flock. Isn't voting for someone based on their race or sex more important anyway?

[Mars]

Great Ron Paul Video

[Startraveler]

These issues are up to state governments, not the Federal government.

This is where we disagree. I believe universal health care is an absolute must at this point, not simply because it ought to be a basic human right but because it necessary for the economic and, of course, physical health of this country. It seems to me to be fundamentally inconsistent to rail against the evils of the banking system and ignore the fact that half of all bankruptcies in this country are health care related. The sort of Friedman-esque free market capitalism Ron Paul seems to favor is not the answer to all of our problems, particularly when the new census data paints this picture of our economy:

Over all, the new data on incomes and poverty mesh consistently with the pattern of the last five years, in which the spoils of the nation’s economic growth have flowed almost exclusively to the wealthy and the extremely wealthy, leaving little for everybody else.

We certainly need a change in policy but I'd prefer one that ends this redux of the Gilded Age. Again, reasonable people can certainly disagree but I think the majority of people (while perhaps liking the language) would not agree with Paul's assessment that entitlements are part of the problem: Social Security is one of the most popular programs in American history. Without it, more than half of this country's seniors would be living in poverty. Witness the hit George Bush took at the start of his second term when he started talking about tinkering with it. Government programs are not the devil. Some fail, some are misguided, and some are very successful. Should the government lend money (or simply give money, in the form of things like Pell Grants) to kids who don't have enough to pay for a college education? To me the answer is obvious. Should it have a federal program that helps needy college students find employment to help pay for tuition (the federal work-study program is, of course, a successful remnant of the "failed" War on Poverty)? Again, the answer is obvious to me.

Ron Paul seems like a very sincere individual and he has some interesting things to say. But we disagree fundamentally on (among other things) the role the government ought to play. In my mind, the government can be a force for tremendous good in society (that goes for state and federal). It hasn't always been but when it is, it's a sight to see. Government is our method for coming together to solve the problems that are bigger than ourselves or our immediate community. Paul characterizes that as the government "taking care of us from cradle to grave" but I find that to be an absurd statement. That's not to say all programs are above reproach but "fend for yourself" is not, in my view, an appropriate philosophy for a healthy society. I don't live in a state of nature and I'm not going to pretend that I want to.

Which brings me back to the point I was making in that post above. We face big problems right now. Eliminating the IRS may be a nice applause line but I think many people at this point are looking for bigger ideas and a broader vision. Taking a step back into the 19th century may sound appealing to some but I don't believe it does to the majority. It doesn't to me, at least.

Ron Paul has something no other candidate has, grass roots support. Most voters who are for Obama, Rudy or Hillary are voting for their party or some buzz issue.

I don't believe that's true. Obama's been setting records not just for the amount of money he's raising but for the number of small donors (I think it's somewhere around a quarter million) who are pitching in to his campaign. Paul may have some grass roots support but I guarantee that Obama and Edwards, at the very least, have a great deal more.

[Atheist God]

There was an internet poll recently and Ron Paul is winning by a landslide

If he got the exposure that the other candidates got on TV he stands a huge chance at victory. But the only candidates who get exposure are candidates endorsed by 'the man' unfortunately.

[Stalker]

If he got the exposure that the other candidates got on TV he stands a huge chance at victory. But the only candidates who get exposure are candidates endorsed by 'the man' unfortunately.

That is precisely what's beginning to annoy me.

For example, remember that big Republican event thingie they had a few weeks back? I was watching the cleanup on C-SPAN, and they were taking calls and such. Of the, oh, 9 or so callers they put on the air, a good three or four were praising Ron Paul. (For comparison, Romney got about three calls of praise, and Huckabee got one.) That night on the Nightly News(s), not a mention of Paul.

I thought I'd grow sick of this election before it was, you know, time for the actual election......just not in this way......

[banunpatriotact]

Over all, the new data on incomes and poverty mesh consistently with the pattern of the last five years, in which the spoils of the nation’s economic growth have flowed almost exclusively to the wealthy and the extremely wealthy, leaving little for everybody else.

We certainly need a change in policy but I'd prefer one that ends this redux of the Gilded Age. Again, reasonable people can certainly disagree but I think the majority of people (while perhaps liking the language) would not agree with Paul's assessment that entitlements are part of the problem: Social Security is one of the most popular programs in American history. Without it, more than half of this country's seniors would be living in poverty. Witness the hit George Bush took at the start of his second term when he started talking about tinkering with it. Government programs are not the devil. Some fail, some are misguided, and some are very successful. Should the government lend money (or simply give money, in the form of things like Pell Grants) to kids who don't have enough to pay for a college education? To me the answer is obvious. Should it have a federal program that helps needy college students find employment to help pay for tuition (the federal work-study program is, of course, a successful remnant of the "failed" War on Poverty)? Again, the answer is obvious to me.

Ron Paul seems like a very sincere individual and he has some interesting things to say. But we disagree fundamentally on (among other things) the role the government ought to play. In my mind, the government can be a force for tremendous good in society (that goes for state and federal). It hasn't always been but when it is, it's a sight to see. Government is our method for coming together to solve the problems that are bigger than ourselves or our immediate community. Paul characterizes that as the government "taking care of us from cradle to grave" but I find that to be an absurd statement. That's not to say all programs are above reproach but "fend for yourself" is not, in my view, an appropriate philosophy for a healthy society. I don't live in a state of nature and I'm not going to pretend that I want to.

Which brings me back to the point I was making in that post above. We face big problems right now. Eliminating the IRS may be a nice applause line but I think many people at this point are looking for bigger ideas and a broader vision. Taking a step back into the 19th century may sound appealing to some but I don't believe it does to the majority. It doesn't to me, at least.

I don't believe that's true. Obama's been setting records not just for the amount of money he's raising but for the number of small donors (I think it's somewhere around a quarter million) who are pitching in to his campaign. Paul may have some grass roots support but I guarantee that Obama and Edwards, at the very least, have a great deal more.

Ron Paul wants to eliminate the fraudulent federal reserve, which is in charge of the inflation tax. For instance, the recent "injection" of liquidity into the market by the FED cost each man, woman and child app. $177. Printing more money to pay off national debt only increases debt. It's slavery!

Social Security will pay out more than it collects by 2012. LINK After that it only gets worse. If we don't stop the fraudulent banking cartels (central banks around the world) from sending us into financial ruin, we will be totally bankrupt in the near future.

He doesn't believe in a fend for yourself society. He believes that the individual states should have more power and more responsibility. Also, most of federal income tax revenue pays the interest (inflation) to the federal reserve. It only accounts for 1/3 of revenue. The corporate tax, which is a legal tax, is paying for military operations. If tax breaks end for oil corporations and other corporations that make ridiculous profits, we can support better social programs, but it is imperitive that the inflation tax and the federal reserve be ousted before it entirely enslaves the poor and middle class!

You should also ask yourself, does Obama really want to end the war which costs us 3 Trillion dollars a year (which amounts to app. $175,000/ every man, woman and child) as well as at this point, over one million Iraqi deaths, mostly civilian, and 4,035 US coalition deaths. Right now we are borrowing a great deal of money from China every day to pay for this! In the democratic debate Obama was talking about finding the terrorists! How can we ever win a war that has an undefined enemy and creates more terrorists than free citizens and makes the pet companies (carlyle, haliburton etc) of politicians rich. They are making money off of us by borrowing money for us from the Federal Reserve to pay them! It's fraud, almost like money laundering.

Edited September 2, 2007 by banunpatriotact

[Mars]

Tyranny in Texas

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDnWT4gCJSE

This is unbelievable, even Non-Ron Paul fans need to see this.

"The vote was supposed to be until 1 or 2 pm, but GOP security prevented registered Delegates from entering the building who were wearing Ron Paul signs at 10am.

I was standing over by the Granny warriors when 2 delegates approached me and asked me to help them get into the convention center.

They had showed up at the door a little before 10am wearing Ron Paul shirts. The security guard told them to change into proper attire. They left and changed then came back and it was now 10:10/10:20 and the security told them the registration was closed.

Apparently everyone who showed up from out of town or with an online registration recpt. was denied access unless they got there before 10am and in proper attire."