Time for RON PAUL REVOLUTION!

[GoBabyGo]

Gentlemen this is the time for serious change. The time we stop supporting Candiates paid and owned lock stock and barrel by corporations. We need a candiate that represents the PEOPLE and believes in the US Constitution! Time to bring our boys home ASAP! As big money continues to make big $$$ at the expense of our Troops. I support the troops and its time for them to come home. Its time to abolish INFLATION (Manipulated via the FEDERAL RESERVE) Anyway look into RON PAUL he is the only one that represebts our interests, there is a reason he is being censored! They fear this man, he is the CURE for our COuntry, Please take time out to check DR. Paul out truly a Patriot! Thanks





****://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwRXp8ZMdNQ

[GoBabyGo]

I sure hope you folks have been watching Dr. Paul. His grassroots movement has swelled. Has the biggest Internet following bar none, and is being censored by all Major media outlets regardless of all the polls he has won. When they start censoring you know deep down this is the right man. He is known as Dr. NO because No lobbyists come visit him. He rejects all lobbyists and is the Champion of the COnstitution, some thing all these so called politicans forgot about!



Take a look at Dr. Paul you wil be impressed only one that speaks our language TRUTH!



Thanks

[Edwards Kings]

Conservative Libertarian Presidential Candidate plus theme song per your YOUTUBE link "Flirting with Disaster" = Pure Irony.

[KJ Duke]

I like this guy. Any combination of Ron Paul & Michael Bloomberg gets my vote a hundred times over versus anyone and everyone running that must bow to their respective party spin and then cowtow to the party agenda once in office.



At what point does the corruption and sheer silliness and stupidity of both major political party's agendas finally get voted down?

[sportsbettingman]

From sportsbook.com...(Odds to win presidential election) 15-1 has to show a bit of respect.



Hillary Clinton 2-1



Al Gore 6-1



John McCain 5-1



George Allen Jr 50-1



Rudy Giuliani 3-1



Sam Brownback 25-1



Bill Richardson 50-1



Mark Warner 30-1



Mitt Romney 8-1



Mike Huckabee 50-1



Evan Bayh 40-1



Chuck Hagel 200-1



Colin Powell 50-1



Joe Biden 50-1



Bill Frist 50-1



John Edwards 8-1



Newt Gingrich 20-1



Tom Vilsack 50-1



Russ Feingold 50-1



Barack Obama 7-2



Rick Santorum 80-1



Tom Tancredo 100-1



Mike Gravel 100-1



Tom Ridge 60-1



Tom Daschle 60-1



Bill Owens 100-1



Bob Kerrey 100-1



John Kerry 40-1



George Pataki 50-1



Condoleezza Rice 30-1



Gary Locke 100-1



Dick Gephardt 100-1



Wesley Clark 20-1



Dick Cheney 75-1



Howard Dean 100-1



Alberto Gonzales 100-1



Bob Ehrlich 100-1



Charles Schumer 100-1



Harold Ford Jr 100-1



Jack Kemp 100-1



Jeb Bush 100-1



Jay Rockefeller 100-1



Ralph Nader 100-1



Paul Bremmer 150-1



Joe Lieberman 150-1



Bob Graham 150-1



Michael Bloomberg 150-1



Tommy Franks 200-1



Jesse Jackson 200-1



George W Bush 200-1



Dennis Kucinich 200-1



Arnold Schwarzenegger 250-1



Bill Clinton 300-1



Paul Wolfowitz 750-1



Alan Keyes 750-1



Elizabeth Dole 750-1



Clint Eastwood 750-1



Ted Kennedy 750-1



Bill OReilly 750-1



Laura Bush 500-1



James Carville 1000-1



Jesse Ventura 1000-1



Al Sharpton 500-1



John Ashcroft 1500-1



Donald Rumsfeld 500-1



Pat Robertson 2000-1



Bill Maher 2500-1



Donald Trump 1000-1



Michael Moore 1000-1



Chris Dodd 100-1



Doug Stanhope 50-1



Wayne Root 1000-1



Ron Paul 15-1



Fred Thompson 20-1



Tommy Thompson 200-1



Duncan Hunter 200-1

[DOUGHBOYS]

Originally posted by sportsbettingman:

From sportsbook.com...(Odds to win presidential election) 15-1 has to show a bit of respect.



Hillary Clinton 2-1



Al Gore 6-1



John McCain 5-1



George Allen Jr 50-1



Rudy Giuliani 3-1



Sam Brownback 25-1



Bill Richardson 50-1



Mark Warner 30-1



Mitt Romney 8-1



Mike Huckabee 50-1



Evan Bayh 40-1



Chuck Hagel 200-1



Colin Powell 50-1



Joe Biden 50-1



Bill Frist 50-1



John Edwards 8-1



Newt Gingrich 20-1



Tom Vilsack 50-1



Russ Feingold 50-1



Barack Obama 7-2



Rick Santorum 80-1



Tom Tancredo 100-1



Mike Gravel 100-1



Tom Ridge 60-1



Tom Daschle 60-1



Bill Owens 100-1



Bob Kerrey 100-1



John Kerry 40-1



George Pataki 50-1



Condoleezza Rice 30-1



Gary Locke 100-1



Dick Gephardt 100-1



Wesley Clark 20-1



Dick Cheney 75-1



Howard Dean 100-1



Alberto Gonzales 100-1



Bob Ehrlich 100-1



Charles Schumer 100-1



Harold Ford Jr 100-1



Jack Kemp 100-1



Jeb Bush 100-1



Jay Rockefeller 100-1



Ralph Nader 100-1



Paul Bremmer 150-1



Joe Lieberman 150-1



Bob Graham 150-1



Michael Bloomberg 150-1



Tommy Franks 200-1



Jesse Jackson 200-1



George W Bush 200-1



Dennis Kucinich 200-1



Arnold Schwarzenegger 250-1



Bill Clinton 300-1



Paul Wolfowitz 750-1



Alan Keyes 750-1



Elizabeth Dole 750-1



Clint Eastwood 750-1



Ted Kennedy 750-1



Bill OReilly 750-1



Laura Bush 500-1



James Carville 1000-1



Jesse Ventura 1000-1



Al Sharpton 500-1



John Ashcroft 1500-1



Donald Rumsfeld 500-1



Pat Robertson 2000-1



Bill Maher 2500-1



Donald Trump 1000-1



Michael Moore 1000-1



Chris Dodd 100-1



Doug Stanhope 50-1



Wayne Root 1000-1



Ron Paul 15-1



Fred Thompson 20-1



Tommy Thompson 200-1



Duncan Hunter 200-1 Deadball era for politicians.

[KJ Duke]

Originally posted by sportsbettingman:

From sportsbook.com...(Odds to win presidential election) 15-1 has to show a bit of respect.



Hillary Clinton 2-1



2-1, huh? Makes sense, the quality of politicians has been steadily declining for decades - ya gotta hit bottom sometime. Out of 290 million people in the country, you're gonna vote in my 290 millionth favorite?



Got my bags packed, just in case.



[ June 21, 2007, 10:20 PM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]

[sportsbettingman]

Like I've said before...



With all of the honest, educated, worthy, mentally healthy women candidates the United States has to offer...Hillary is the one put forth to attempt to be the first Woman President.



Could really backfire unless she's part of a big one-two punch. (Like Vice Pres.)

[Edwards Kings]

The 2008 Presidential Election is the Democrats to lose as is often the case for the opposition party after a two-term presidency. However, they must present a main stream candidate. With a San Francisco Liberal (but I repeat myself) Representative as Speaker and Party Leader, Howard Dean as Party Chair, and Ted Kennedy playing venerable Party sage, the Dems have instead shown how far out of the mainstream they have become.



As has been made clear since the 1960 election, you cannot win the presidency with out the South, which usually votes as a very solid block. In 1988 the Dems had a chance, but a New England liberal was placed on the ticket and lost. Even JFK needed Johnson to win in 1960, but reelection in 1964 was by no means a sure thing. Bush II was not a very popular President and very vunerable in 2004, but another Mass. liberal couldn't pull it off. All other Dem candidates (Mondale, Humphrey) have likewise lost except Johnson, Carter and Clinton (the one without the occasional hyphon), all of whom were from Southern states.



Now...let's be Democratic strategigists...let's have as frontrunners the two candidates who would be LEAST attractive to the South duke it out for the nomination. One, an uber-liberal, black, Illinois freshman Senator (i.e. lacks any real experience on the national much less international stage) or the polarizing, hyphon dropping, former First Lady (and Elanor Roosevelt she ain't)! Unless another candidate separates themselves from the rest of the Democratic pack (like Clinton did in 1992), the pendulam in the South (and other swing areas such as Pennslyvania, Ohio, and Iowa) will move back to the Republicans with an Obama or Clinton Democratic candidate.



Now all the Republicans have to do is come up with a centerist candidate with good qualifications. I am just beginning my deep dive into the current pool to see if there is one I personally can support.



I have not done my research on Dr. Paul, but his position on cutting and running in Iraq does not lead me to believe he offering anything more than populist sound bites. Nor does his stated isolationist platform show me that he remotely has any idea of the lessons learned in history nor that he realizes certain recent inventions (such as electricity, telephone, and telegraph) has brought the world very close together. To retrench to try and ignore all the other parts of the globe is just foolish.



His statements that Americas involvement world-wide has cost American lives is just plain wrong as well. America tried that in the last century. Isolationism did not work in 1917 or 1941. It will not work today and Dr. Paul seems to have forgotten that active US involvement overseas in ALL other world regions broke the back of the USSR (the only true threat to the US we have seen in since the War of 1812) without costing millions of US lives. Had we ingnored USSR encrouchment in Europe, the Middle East, Southeast Asia and Africa, inevitably we would have had to fight for our lives in open conflict. In short, Dr. Paul's statement on isolationism is just plain dangerous.



And I am not sure of his opinion on inflation (as referred to in the original post), but if he thinks he can wipe out inflation, he is nuts. The only way to wipe out inflation is to have absolute control on ALL pricing and costs (including wages) and all revenues/profits in the "private" sector. That would make Dr. Paul at least a socialist and at worst a communist. Price inflation (and deflation) is a product of capitalism. Either that or he is a fool to think there is any other way.



In short, the White House can be saved from the disaster that would occur should either of the Dem front-runners win the election if the Republicans can become the Party of Reagan again. A wacko candidate with off the wall positions will not work.



[ June 22, 2007, 07:52 AM: Message edited by: Edwards Kings ]

[Chest Rockwell]

Originally posted by Edwards Kings:

The 2008 Presidential Election is the Democrats to lose as is often the case for the opposition party after a two-term presidency. However, they must present a main stream candidate. With a San Francisco Liberal (but I repeat myself) Representative as Speaker and Party Leader, Howard Dean as Party Chair, and Ted Kennedy playing venerable Party sage, the Dems have instead shown how far out of the mainstream they have become.



As has been made clear since the 1960 election, you cannot win the presidency with out the South, which usually votes as a very solid block. In 1988 the Dems had a chance, but a New England liberal was placed on the ticket and lost. Even JFK needed Johnson to win in 1960, but reelection in 1964 was by no means a sure thing. Bush II was not a very popular President and very vunerable in 2004, but another Mass. liberal couldn't pull it off. All other Dem candidates (Mondale, Humphrey) have likewise lost except Johnson, Carter and Clinton (the one without the occasional hyphon), all of whom were from Southern states.



Now...let's be Democratic strategigists...let's have as frontrunners the two candidates who would be LEAST attractive to the South duke it out for the nomination. One, an uber-liberal, black, Illinois freshman Senator (i.e. lacks any real experience on the national much less international stage) or the polarizing, hyphon dropping, former First Lady (and Elanor Roosevelt she ain't)! Unless another candidate separates themselves from the rest of the Democratic pack (like Clinton did in 1992), the pendulam in the South (and other swing areas such as Pennslyvania, Ohio, and Iowa) will move back to the Republicans with an Obama or Clinton Democratic candidate.



Now all the Republicans have to do is come up with a centerist candidate with good qualifications. I am just beginning my deep dive into the current pool to see if there is one I personally can support.



I have not done my research on Dr. Paul, but his position on cutting and running in Iraq does not lead me to believe he offering anything more than populist sound bites. Nor does his stated isolationist platform show me that he remotely has any idea of the lessons learned in history nor that he realizes certain recent inventions (such as electricity, telephone, and telegraph) has brought the world very close together. To retrench to try and ignore all the other parts of the globe is just foolish.



His statements that Americas involvement world-wide has cost American lives is just plain wrong as well. America tried that in the last century. Isolationism did not work in 1917 or 1941. It will not work today and Dr. Paul seems to have forgotten that active US involvement overseas in ALL other world regions broke the back of the USSR (the only true threat to the US we have seen in since the War of 1812) without costing millions of US lives. Had we ingnored USSR encrouchment in Europe, the Middle East, Southeast Asia and Africa, inevitably we would have had to fight for our lives in open conflict. In short, Dr. Paul's statement on isolationism is just plain dangerous.



And I am not sure of his opinion on inflation (as referred to in the original post), but if he thinks he can wipe out inflation, he is nuts. The only way to wipe out inflation is to have absolute control on ALL pricing and costs (including wages) and all revenues/profits in the "private" sector. That would make Dr. Paul at least a socialist and at worst a communist. Price inflation (and deflation) is a product of capitalism. Either that or he is a fool to think there is any other way.



In short, the White House can be saved from the disaster that would occur should either of the Dem front-runners win the election if the Republicans can become the Party of Reagan again. A wacko candidate with off the wall positions will not work. Dang Wayne we finally found something you are good at



For the record I am leaning Romney and my money so far has gone to Duncan Hunter who I think has a great chance to be a number 2 on the ticket.



The Republicans face just as big of an issue as the Dems. Will the base support a more liberal candidate on social issues?



I watched the full debate on both sides- and 3 things struck me. I may dislike John Edwards more than KJ Duke dislikes Clinton, Bill Richardson and Tommy Thompson were once considered rising stars in their parties for what?, and based upon earlier press reports I was expecting Ron Paul to make a fool of himself- to my surprise he did not. Is he electable no way.



The best thing that could happen to the Republicans is for Bloomberg to run as an independent. I cannot see him taking more than 20% of his votes from the right- he is just too liberal.



What are the chances that we have a 3 candidate race and they are the junior senator from NY, the former Mayor of New York, and the current Mayor of New York?



One last big thing IMO- people often talk about how all the candidates are the same on both sides and at certain points in history I would agree.



Big differences in Iraq, healthcare, stem cell, immigration, and some of the touchy social issues in 08.



[ June 22, 2007, 08:36 AM: Message edited by: Chest Rockwell ]

[DOUGHBOYS]

Originally posted by Chest Rockwell:

For the record I am leaning Romney [/QB][/quote]




Mitt would get the baseball vote.

[Edwards Kings]

You may be right there Chesty because it is becoming more obvious all the time it ain't baseball! Oh well...I may surprise you yet!



On your assertion: "The best thing that could happen to the Republicans is for Bloomberg to run as an independent. I cannot see him taking more than 20% of his votes from the right- he is just too liberal."



You may be right. I am concerned about splintering the conservative/moderate (i.e. Bloomberg attracts the moderates) Republicans which could lead to a Democrat low 40's% popular vote victor (See Bush I/Clinton/Perot in 1992). However, if the National Democratic candidate is denied NYC and therefore NY, we might end up with a low 40's% popular vote Republican victor as well. In either case, it would not leave the new President with much of a mandate and NO 100 day grace period.



On: "What are the chances that we have a 3 candidate race and they are the junior senator from NY, the former Mayor of New York, and the current Mayor of New York?"



The conservatives (or at least those that view abortion and stem cell research as single defining issues) may stay away in droves if that were to occur (but boy, wouldn't that pXXX off California!). Advantage Democrats, but again it would not leave the new President with much of a mandate. It may also reverse a trend of increasing raw numbers in voter turnout. Trivia: Who had more popular vote than any other Presidental Candidate in history? George Bush in 2004. Who had the second most popular vote than any other Presidental Candidate in history? John Kerry in 2004!



[ June 22, 2007, 10:21 AM: Message edited by: Edwards Kings ]

[KJ Duke]

Originally posted by Edwards Kings:

A wacko candidate with off the wall positions will not work. E King - good post overall, but I don't think we have Ross Perot on our hands here.



I admit that I have just started to look at this race. I don't know much about Paul either, to be honest, other than the media picks up on things he says that obviously haven't been run through the marketing PC machine, cleansed, crystallized and focus group tested for voter feel-good approval. But when actually discussing ideas, he comes across as intellient, thoughtful and honest. A true rarity, which drew me to him. It seems everyone is expecting Ross Perot, but the reality is a far more grounded individual, at least from what I've heard so far.



Milton Friedman used to say things that sounded far-fetched as well when the media would grab a sound bite from him, but his ideas were rooted in logic, sound principle and a deep understanding that no headline could convey. I suspect/hope, some of this may be true for Ron Paul, but I don't know yet.



[ June 22, 2007, 11:21 AM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]

[Edwards Kings]

Originally posted by KJ Duke:

quote:Originally posted by Edwards Kings:

A wacko candidate with off the wall positions will not work. E King - good post overall, but I don't think we have Ross Perot on our hands here.



I admit that I have just started to look at this race. I don't know much about Paul either, to be honest, other than the media picks up on things he says that obviously haven't been run through the marketing PC machine, cleansed, crystallized and focus group tested for voter feel-good approval. But when actually discussing ideas, he comes across as intellient, thoughtful and honest. A true rarity, which drew me to him. It seems everyone is expecting Ross Perot, but the reality is a far more grounded individual, at least from what I've heard so far.



Milton Friedman used to say things that sounded far-fetched as well when the media would grab a sound bite from him, but his ideas were rooted in logic, sound principle and a deep understanding that no headline could convey. I suspect/hope, some of this may be true for Ron Paul, but I don't know yet. [/QUOTE]I hear you. Though my post is a little strong, my mind is completely open. As the (too long) campaign season moves into the part where they separate the sheep from the goats, I hope at least one candidate (and I honestly could not care if it is a Demoquack or a Repiglican or Loudmouthitarian or what) will show themselves to be honest, intelligent and able. That will be the one I will support.



[ June 22, 2007, 12:26 PM: Message edited by: Edwards Kings ]

[DOUGHBOYS]

You are shooting for the moon.