Atlantis Online

General Category => General & Miscellaneous => Topic started by: freedomdomain on February 10, 2008, 12:59:54 am



Title: Why has Ron Paul not caught on with the Public?
Post by: freedomdomain on February 10, 2008, 12:59:54 am
I don't understand it.  He speaks truth, and people continue to be deceived by lies.

He warns of the grave state of the future and (though people know that it is) they would seemingly rather hear that things will be "okay."

The government is out to snatch up your rights and initiate a one world government, people. 

Don't be on the side of the corporations. 


Title: Re: Why has Ron Paul not caught on with the Public?
Post by: Volitzer on February 10, 2008, 02:39:03 pm
A stupid public that chooses what they do and don't want to believe.   >:(

A stupid public that takes freedom for granted.   >:(

Stupid women who think Hillary will be the first matriarchal Gynecrat.   >:(

Stupid people who just can't be bothered.  >:(

Stupid conservatives who think the NRA aint in cahoots with the CFR.   >:(

Stupid liberals who think all problems stem from just Republicans and fail to see that the CFR runs both Republican and Democrat parties.   >:(

Stupid independents who think that a vote for a 3rd party candidate is a thrown away vote.   >:(

Stupid apathetists who don't care about anything until it happens to them.    >:(

Stupid users who only think about what's in it for them.   >:(

It'll take people getting thrown into FEMA Camps before the m'ass'es finally wake the hell up I fear.   :(


Title: Re: Why has Ron Paul not caught on with the Public?
Post by: Tom Hebert on February 10, 2008, 03:47:20 pm
Hi Freedomdomain,

I'm glad you asked.  Most people see Ron Paul as a nutcase supported by nutcases.  That's why his ratings have consistently been in the single digits.  I'm sure you understand why people just don't want to vote for a loser.  Can you blame them?


Title: Re: Why has Ron Paul not caught on with the Public?
Post by: Volitzer on February 10, 2008, 03:59:29 pm
Hi Freedomdomain,

I'm glad you asked.  Most people see Ron Paul as a nutcase supported by nutcases.  That's why his ratings have consistently been in the single digits.  I'm sure you understand why people just don't want to vote for a loser.  Can you blame them?


 ::)

Sure this coming from a guy who thinks the latest recession wasn't engineered by the Bilderberg group and that it's all part of a "business cycle".

HEY CLUELESS a recession doesn't last 8 years when a business cycle consists of 10.

It is becuase Americans know so little about economics that the Bilderbergs were so successful in creating the Recession Problem and evoking the Public's Reaction so the CFR can set up their shamidates to usher in the Illuminati's Solution of the NAU.  Which in turn nullifies the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  Oooops

You've been on both forums long enough... it's time to get educated or move to Communist-China if you love enslavement so much.


Title: Re: Why has Ron Paul not caught on with the Public?
Post by: Bianca on February 10, 2008, 05:18:33 pm


Hey, Vol, take it easy......


So everybody but YOU is  stupid?


R I G H T !!!!



MAYBE THE REST OF US CAN'T STOMACH YOUR CHOICE ! ! !


NO REPUBLICAN IS  E V E R  GOING TO GET MY VOTE.


CURB YOUR INSULTS!!!


Title: Re: Why has Ron Paul not caught on with the Public?
Post by: Volitzer on February 10, 2008, 06:13:22 pm
 author=Bianca


Hey, Vol, take it easy......


So everybody but YOU is  stupid?

  Whoa  :o  Where did I say that ?  ??? ??? ???


R I G H T !!!! 



MAYBE THE REST OF US CAN'T STOMACH YOUR CHOICE ! ! !

Okay than suggest a candidate with no CFR connections and is not a Republican.


NO REPUBLICAN IS  E V E R  GOING TO GET MY VOTE.

Then vote Libertarian or some other Constitutional Candidate.


CURB YOUR INSULTS!!!

I didn't mention the smart people following a particular candidate because smart people will eventually come to the right conclusion over time.  Once they make the CFR connection it'll be all over as far as loyalty to any CFR candidate.

Those who refuse to see, despite all the information available to them they are the truly stupid.  You look at any tyranny throughout history and you'll see the people who live under it being uneducated by allowing it to happen.

Look at Gernmany, they had a Weimar Republic after WW1, however since the Germans weren't familiar with the workings of a Republic the Weimar Government fell and the Nazis took over.

Look at China, you had Dr. San Yat Sen trying to establish a functional republic, however uneducated Chinese and American spies/agents who didn't fully comprehend the idea of a REPUBLIC thus allowed the Chinese Communist Mao Tze Dong to establish tyranny.

Now today you bet I am scared.  We have had liberal saturation in our education system for close to 40 years.  We have had flouridated water for at least 30 years which has reduced the IQ of tens of millions.  What a perfect catalyst to bring in a tyrannical government here.

They read the Declaration of Independence during the Superbowl this year.  The Constitution and the Bill of Rights is popular again.

What I don't see here is real reasons not to support Ron Paul, liberty, the Constitution and be against Globalism.

If any member does support a candidate then tell me why we'd be better off in the NAU ??

What are the benefits to turning Amereica into a slave-labor econonomy like Communist-China ??

No what I hear is vote Barack = black power, vote Hillary = girl power, vote Huckabee = fundie power, vote McCain = beer buddy power.

 

[/quote]


Title: Re: Why has Ron Paul not caught on with the Public?
Post by: Bianca on February 10, 2008, 09:15:58 pm





QUOTE:




A stupid public that chooses what they do and don't want to believe.   

A stupid public that takes freedom for granted.   

Stupid women who think Hillary will be the first matriarchal Gynecrat.   

Stupid people who just can't be bothered.   

Stupid conservatives who think the NRA aint in cahoots with the CFR.   

Stupid liberals who think all problems stem from just Republicans and fail to see that the CFR runs both Republican and Democrat parties.   

Stupid independents who think that a vote for a 3rd party candidate is a thrown away vote.   

Stupid apathetists who don't care about anything until it happens to them.   

Stupid users who only think about what's in it for them.   

It'll take people getting thrown into FEMA Camps before the m'ass'es finally wake the hell up I fear.   


Title: Re: Why has Ron Paul not caught on with the Public?
Post by: Monique Faulkner on February 10, 2008, 10:01:16 pm
Anyone notice how Ron Paul supporters are almost all male?  There's a reason for that, he wants to overturn Roe vs. Wade and throw the legality of abortion back to each individual states.  So, depending on whether you are living in a liberal state or one controlled by militant Bible-thumpers, you're SOL when it comes to controlling your own body.


Title: Re: Why has Ron Paul not caught on with the Public?
Post by: Volitzer on February 10, 2008, 10:46:35 pm
Anyone notice how Ron Paul supporters are almost all male?  There's a reason for that, he wants to overturn Roe vs. Wade and throw the legality of abortion back to each individual states.  So, depending on whether you are living in a liberal state or one controlled by militant Bible-thumpers, you're SOL when it comes to controlling your own body.

Ever see the video at Liberty University where Ron Paul spoke.  There were 3 women for every 2 guys in that crowd.

Ever notice how many women call into Alex Jones supporting Ron Paul.

Can you find proof where he wants to overturn Roe vs. Wade ?  or is this just another women-rightzer scare tactic ??

Please provide some proof for your claim.

Have you ever read the Constitution or Bill of Rights by the way ?


Title: Re: Why has Ron Paul not caught on with the Public?
Post by: Kris Conover on February 10, 2008, 10:55:29 pm
Quote
Can you find proof where he wants to overturn Roe vs. Wade ?  or is this just another women-rightzer scare tactic ??

Please provide some proof for your claim.

Here's some proof for you, Volitzer:

Ron Paul: Roe v. Wade a 'Big Mistake'
Posted January 24, 2008 | 03:40 AM (EST)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

         

Before getting elected to Congress in the late 1970s, Paul delivered more than 4,000 babies as an OB/GYN. When it comes to abortion, he believes the mother's freedom of choice is mitigated by an obligation to protect the life of the "unborn child," stating on his campaign Web site that he never found abortion necessary to save the life of one of his patients. He is also a sponsor of HR 300, proposed legislation that his Web site says would "negate the effects of Roe v. Wade."


If elected president, Paul told me he would continue to pursue such a policy.

"I think the Roe v. Wade situation was a big mistake and the states ought to have the right to decide on the issue, so I would deny jurisdiction to the federal courts on abortion issues," he said.


Roe v. Wade was decided in large part under the doctrine of substantive due process as an issue of privacy. Paul thinks that basis for the ruling is flawed.

"I don't see it as a privacy issue," he said. "I think it's only a life issue. As an obstetrician, I can verify the fact that the life does exist. It's very much alive, and it's very human, and I have a legal responsibility for it. If I do any harm, I can be sued for it. If an individual kills a fetus, they can be hauled off to court for it. So it's a legal life. To say that life doesn't exist -- if someone kills a fetus in a car accident, they have to answer to this. So why is it life one time but not another time?"

While admitting situations such as **** and incest require further consideration, he continued his rebuke of the Supreme Court's privacy basis for legalizing abortion.

"The government doesn't have the right to invade your home or have cameras in your home," he said. "That doesn't give you the right to kill a child just because it was born and it was in the crib and you didn't like the way it looked and you went, 'Oh, we don't want to keep this baby.' Everybody knows it's illegal and it's killing. But one minute before the baby's born they come to me and if I did the abortion I'd get paid for it. So that's a real contradiction about the definition of life."

While some would consider his stance on abortion and many of his other positions inconsistent, Paul does not think so, instead tying in his pro-life stance with the larger logic of his world-view.

"If I can't defend life, how am I going to defend the liberty of every single individual on how they're going to run their lives? And I essentially do that, so I think that I have to be consistent on defending life or the defense of liberty doesn't hold up."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-freedman/ron-paul-roe-v-wade-a-_b_82991.html


Title: Re: Why has Ron Paul not caught on with the Public?
Post by: Kris Conover on February 10, 2008, 11:01:54 pm
Quote
Ever see the video at Liberty University where Ron Paul spoke.  There were 3 women for every 2 guys in that crowd.

Ever notice how many women call into Alex Jones supporting Ron Paul.

No, I have never seen any of that, in fact the only people I know supporting Ron Pail are guys.  There might be a few women, but not many. Most women - even if they would never consider abortion for themselves - would not want to give the government that kind of power.

Quote
Have you ever read the Constitution or Bill of Rights by the way ?

The Constitution, or the Bill of Rights, even the Bible, for that matter, doesn't take any position on the rights of the fetus or abortion. 


Title: Re: Why has Ron Paul not caught on with the Public?
Post by: Kris Conover on February 10, 2008, 11:12:21 pm
Looks like Norma McCorvey, the original "Jane Roe" in Roe vs Wade (now another right-wing, anti-choice wacko) also supports Paul, precisely because he wants to overtutn Roe vs. Wade:



On the 35th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court ruling, Norma McCorvey (a.k.a. "Jane Roe," who later changed her views on abortion in the mid-90s) gave Paul her official endorsement today.   

"I support Ron Paul for president because we share the same goal, that of overturning Roe v. Wade. He has never wavered on the issue of being pro-life and has a voting record to prove it. He understands the importance of civil liberties for all, including the unborn," she said at a press conference in Washington this morning.

Paul accepted the pro-life activist's endorsement, saying of abortion: "It is still one of the most crucial issues of our day that we deal with this. As much as I talk about economic liberties, and civil liberties, and trying to avoid the killing overseas, I think the issue of life is paramount."


http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/22/599487.aspx


Title: Re: Why has Ron Paul not caught on with the Public?
Post by: Volitzer on February 10, 2008, 11:18:17 pm
A stupid public that chooses what they do and don't want to believe. 

People who pick and choose their realities aint as smart as those who take it all in good or bad.  

A stupid public that takes freedom for granted.

Versus the educated public that understands what tyranny is.

Stupid women who think Hillary will be the first matriarchal Gynecrat.   

Versus smart women like Naomi Wolfe  who make the CFR connection and can see the 11 steps to fascism.

1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy
2. Create a gulag (labor camp/political prison)
3. Develop a thug caste
4. Set up an internal surveillance system
5. Harass citizens' groups
6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release
7. Target key individuals
8. Control the press
9. Dissent equals treason
10. Suspend the rule of law
-11- Grab the guns.


Stupid people who just can't be bothered. 

Versus the smart people who understand the descent into fascism.  

Stupid conservatives who think the NRA aint in cahoots with the CFR.   

Smart conservatives and other groups are part of the GOA Gun Owners of America.

Stupid liberals who think all problems stem from just Republicans and fail to see that the CFR runs both Republican and Democrat parties.   

Versus the liberals turn progressive who see the left-right paradigm for the Illuminati illusion it is.

Stupid independents who think that a vote for a 3rd party candidate is a thrown away vote. 

Versus the smart ones that begin independent vote auditing.  

Stupid apathetists who don't care about anything until it happens to them.   

 ;) Enough said.  

Stupid users who only think about what's in it for them.

Never met a smart user to date...  :-\

It'll take people getting thrown into FEMA Camps before the m'ass'es finally wake the hell up I fear.

There may be another way to enlighten people but I don't know what else it'll take.

 :P

I'd like to know why CFR hasn't had the same bad PR as the KKK ??

 ???


Title: Re: Why has Ron Paul not caught on with the Public?
Post by: Kris Conover on February 10, 2008, 11:19:00 pm
From Ron Paul's own website:

(http://www.roguegovernment.com/images/4759/ronpaul.jpg)

Issue: Life and Liberty

“ I am strongly pro life. Life begins at conception ... but, I do not believe this should be a federal matter. All issues of life and violence and crime and murder are dealt with at the local level. ”

The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideals of liberty. My professional and legislative record demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life principle.

In 40 years of medical practice, I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman.

In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094.

I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn.

I have also authored HR 1095, which prevents federal funds to be used for so-called “population control.”



Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken direct action to restore protection for the unborn.

As an OB/GYN doctor, I’ve delivered over 4,000 babies. That experience has made me an unshakable foe of abortion. Many of you may have read my book, Challenge To Liberty, which champions the idea that there cannot be liberty in a society unless the rights of all innocents are protected. Much can be understood about the civility of a society in observing its regard for the dignity of human life.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/life-and-liberty/


Title: Re: Why has Ron Paul not caught on with the Public?
Post by: Kris Conover on February 10, 2008, 11:20:25 pm
Quote
Versus smart women like Naomi Wolfe  who make the CFR connection and can see the 11 steps to fascism.


You do know that Naomi Wolfe is a Clinton supporter, don't you?  ???


Title: Re: Why has Ron Paul not caught on with the Public?
Post by: Volitzer on February 10, 2008, 11:22:56 pm
Quote
Versus smart women like Naomi Wolfe  who make the CFR connection and can see the 11 steps to fascism.


You do know that Naomi Wolfe is a Clinton supporter, don't you?  ???

No I didn't.


Title: Re: Why has Ron Paul not caught on with the Public?
Post by: Volitzer on February 10, 2008, 11:25:54 pm
From Ron Paul's own website:

(http://www.roguegovernment.com/images/4759/ronpaul.jpg)

Issue: Life and Liberty

“ I am strongly pro life. Life begins at conception ... but, I do not believe this should be a federal matter. All issues of life and violence and crime and murder are dealt with at the local level. ”

The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideals of liberty. My professional and legislative record demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life principle.

In 40 years of medical practice, I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman.

In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094.

I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn.

I have also authored HR 1095, which prevents federal funds to be used for so-called “population control.”



Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken direct action to restore protection for the unborn.

As an OB/GYN doctor, I’ve delivered over 4,000 babies. That experience has made me an unshakable foe of abortion. Many of you may have read my book, Challenge To Liberty, which champions the idea that there cannot be liberty in a society unless the rights of all innocents are protected. Much can be understood about the civility of a society in observing its regard for the dignity of human life.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/life-and-liberty/

Okay but what percentage of women are fetus killing femi-nazis ??

There are actually more women who want to protect life than the small percentage who seek to destroy it.


Title: Re: Why has Ron Paul not caught on with the Public?
Post by: Volitzer on February 10, 2008, 11:28:42 pm
Besides how can women **** about not having rights themselves yet be more than willing to deprive fetuses their rights to life ??

Seems a little hypocritical.


Title: Re: Why has Ron Paul not caught on with the Public?
Post by: Kris Conover on February 10, 2008, 11:30:29 pm
Anyway, the Ron Paul constituency happens to be a pretty narrow one - it seems to be mostly made up of a lot of jaded former right wingers who no longer like Bush, and, for whom the choice issue was never important to them.

Yes, a lot of people mistrust the government.

No, most people do not want to pay taxes.


But you aren't going to get a lot of Democrats joining it cause Democrats believe that - if government has one purpose it is to make people's lives better, not worse!  People who also believe in the right to privacy won't be supporting him either, his policies are at odds with themselves when it comes to that.


Title: Re: Why has Ron Paul not caught on with the Public?
Post by: Volitzer on February 10, 2008, 11:32:34 pm
Anyway, the Ron Paul constituency happens to be a pretty narrow one - it seems to be mostly made up of a lot of jaded former right wingers who no longer like Bush, and, for whom the choice issue was never important to them.

Yes, a lot of people mistrust the government.

No, most people do not want to pay taxes.


But you aren't going to get a lot of Democrats joining it cause Democrats believe that - if government has one purpose it is to make people's lives better, not worse!  People who also believe in the right to privacy won't be supporting him either, his policies are at odds with themselves when it comes to that.

Democrats of old yes. These new CFR Democrats don't believe it.  Don't be decieved.


Title: Re: Why has Ron Paul not caught on with the Public?
Post by: Volitzer on February 10, 2008, 11:37:34 pm

But you aren't going to get a lot of Democrats joining it cause Democrats believe that - if government has one purpose it is to make people's lives better, not worse!  People who also believe in the right to privacy won't be supporting him either, his policies are at odds with themselves when it comes to that.


 :o Ron Paul is against the 4th Amendment !!!!!!  :o  Since when ??

This is quite the claim, you have proof right ??

Pro-life I can see the proof but anti-4th Amendment wow !!!!!!! :o

Proof ??  ???


Title: Re: Why has Ron Paul not caught on with the Public?
Post by: Kris Conover on February 10, 2008, 11:38:14 pm
Quote
Besides how can women **** about not having rights themselves yet be more than willing to deprive fetuses their rights to life ??

Seems a little hypocritical.

Sure, that's your belief and you're entitled to it.  But you're NOT entitled to force those beliefs on people who don't believe the same as you do. Your position is inconsistent, too.  One one hand, you mention the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, on the other, you want to give away your right to privacy. Is the right to privacy in the Contitution and the Bill of Rights, hmm?

Besides, do you know how overpopulated the world is getting??  In some areas of the world, we can't feed the people we have, nor employ them, nor house them.  It's not like we need to go out of our way to get more.


Title: Re: Why has Ron Paul not caught on with the Public?
Post by: Volitzer on February 10, 2008, 11:45:08 pm
Quote
Besides how can women **** about not having rights themselves yet be more than willing to deprive fetuses their rights to life ??

Seems a little hypocritical.

Sure, that's your belief and you're entitled to it.  But you're NOT entitled to force those beliefs on people who don't believe the same as you do. Your position is inconsistent, too.  One one hand, you mention the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, on the other, you want to give away your right to privacy. Is the right to privacy in the Contitution and the Bill of Rights, hmm?

Besides, do you know how overpopulated the world is getting??  In some areas of the world, we can't feed the people we have, nor employ them, nor house them.  It's not like we need to go out of our way to get more.

What about the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, you are denying that to babies by aborting fetuses.  Your forcing your belief of abortion onto a fetus whose rights are guranteeed by the Constitution.  If women were denied rights, then women would be marching in the streets.  Women are only brave against the unborn because they can't defend themselves.  How sickening and cowardly.


Title: Re: Why has Ron Paul not caught on with the Public?
Post by: Kris Conover on February 10, 2008, 11:50:21 pm
Quote
What about the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, you are denying that to babies by aborting fetuses.  Your forcing your belief of abortion onto a fetus whose rights are guranteeed by the Constitution.


They aren't guaranteed in the Constitution!  Have you read the Constitution?  Show me one part that mentions the right of the fetus, or even "the unborn."

Quote
Women are only brave against the unborn because they can't defend themselves.  How sickening and cowardly.

Gee, I could say the same against wife-beaters!  Talk on the issues, don't resort to name-calling and dogma.


Title: Re: Why has Ron Paul not caught on with the Public?
Post by: Kristina on February 10, 2008, 11:58:41 pm
Volitzer, check this out:

(http://images.chron.com/photos/2008/02/08/9945764/311xInlineGallery.jpg)

U.S. Rep. Ron Paul meets students and supporters following a convocation at Liberty University. About 8,500 showed up for Friday's event in Lynchburg, Va., the largest he has seen on the campaign trail.
JILL NANCE: THE NEWS AND ADVANCE



With losses mounting, Paul downsizes campaign
National staff for White House bid will be 'leaner' as he turns focus to keeping House seat


By BENNETT ROTH and R. G. RATCLIFFE
Copyright 2008 Houston Chronicle

Ron Paul, the Lake Jackson GOP lawmaker whose Internet-driven presidential campaign has smashed fundraising records but failed to garner substantial voter support, is scaling back his White House efforts and is focusing on the primary race to retain his House seat.

In an e-mail message sent to supporters Saturday, Paul said that while he will remain in the presidential race, he must place a priority on his congressional contest, where he faces Friendswood accountant Chris Peden.

"If I were to lose the primary for my congressional seat, all our opponents would react with glee, and pretend it was a rejection of our ideas," he said. "I cannot and will not let that happen."

With Arizona Sen. John McCain on a clear path to the Republican presidential nomination, Paul said he no longer needs as big a national staff, "so," he said, "I am making it leaner and tighter."


No third-party run

Paul repeated earlier pledges that he will not make a third-party run for president. In 1988, he was the Libertarian Party presidential candidate, and thousands of his grassroots backers have encouraged him to continue his national fight through November.

While Paul's opposition to the Iraq war has drawn followers nationally, it has also stirred up dissent in his heavily Republican district. The strangely shaped district hugs the Gulf Coast, takes in pieces of Galveston and Chambers County, reaches up to include parts of Brazoria and Fort Bend counties, and stretches beyond Victoria.

In an interview with the Houston Chronicle, Paul said he was not worried about retaining his seat in the March 4 primary.

"If we look at the history of running in the district, I usually win without too much trouble, and we assume we will," Paul said.

Paul's primary challenger said he was surprised at the abrupt about-face because the incumbent has thus far not been willing "to come here for a debate."

"He suddenly has awakened to the fact that he has an opponent working very hard," Peden said.

Paul indicated winning the GOP nomination for re-election will be his biggest victory in Texas but said he will make a mark in the presidential voting, too.


Ads to start airing this week

"It's a little bit early to write us off, but I'm not making any predictions that we're going to run away with it, either," he said. "We're going to be continuing the process to remind Republicans what the conservative philosophy is all about."

Paul's spokesman Jesse Benton said the national staff would likely be reduced from 150 to about 50, with those who worked in the Super Tuesday primaries in states such as California being let go.

In addition, Benton said, he and other national staffers will transfer to Paul's congressional re-election operation.

But Benton said that even as Paul wages a primary campaign he will also continue running his presidential campaign in Texas. Three staffers will be assigned to his presidential effort here. He said that the Paul campaign has purchased about $700,000 worth of radio and cable television advertising that is scheduled to start running this week in the Houston, Austin and Dallas-Fort Worth markets.

Benton said that Paul still has about $6 million in his presidential election account. He said the lawmaker cannot transfer that money to his congressional campaign unless he terminates his presidential effort, which he does not intend to do.

But Benton said Paul had recently raised several hundred thousand dollars for his congressional race.

Paul is scheduled to hold a rally for his congressional race today at the Lake Jackson Civic Center from 1:30 to 4 p.m.


Opponent 'running hard'

Local Republican officials said they were not surprised by Paul's decision to concentrate on his local race.

"In terms of the presidential campaign, I think realistically, you know, he's not going to be a viable candidate at the convention, and he does have an opponent in the primary who is running hard," said Mary Anne Wyatt, the chairwoman of the Victoria County GOP.

Jared Woodfill, Harris County GOP chairman, said, "It's very surprising, if not shocking, that he's still in the presidential race. His numbers have gone absolutely nowhere."

Paul's announcement was greeted with sadness by supporters in cyberspace and at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington.

"His analysis is correct," said Aaron Biterman, a Paul backer from Arlington, Va. "He should be worried about his congressional seat. We don't want to lose Ron Paul in Congress."

Although the libertarian-leaning Paul outpaced all of his GOP presidential rivals in fundraising late last year, he has failed to win a single contest.

He has collected just 14 delegates, according to The Associated Press count, far behind McCain, who has almost sealed the GOP nomination with 719 delegates. Benton, however, contended that Paul has a minimum of 16 delegates and could have as many as 42 when tallies of contests already held are complete.

To win the Republican nomination a candidate must have a total of 1,191 delegates.

Patrick Brendel in the Washington Bureau also contributed.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/5528537.html


Title: Re: Why has Ron Paul not caught on with the Public?
Post by: Kristina on February 10, 2008, 11:59:33 pm
It looks like the Ron Paul for President campaign shall soon be coming to an end. 


Title: Re: Why has Ron Paul not caught on with the Public?
Post by: Volitzer on February 11, 2008, 12:03:13 am
Quote
What about the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, you are denying that to babies by aborting fetuses.  Your forcing your belief of abortion onto a fetus whose rights are guranteeed by the Constitution.


They aren't guaranteed in the Constitution!  Have you read the Constitution?  Show me one part that mentions the right of the fetus, or even "the unborn."

Quote
Women are only brave against the unborn because they can't defend themselves.  How sickening and cowardly.

Gee, I could say the same against wife-beaters!  Talk on the issues, don't resort to name-calling and dogma.

Okay wrong document... I meant the Declaration of Independence from which I quote

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Notice the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and the last part ...as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Saftey & Happiness.  It implies the unborn just like women and minorities.


Title: Re: Why has Ron Paul not caught on with the Public?
Post by: Volitzer on February 11, 2008, 12:10:26 am
It looks like the Ron Paul for President campaign shall soon be coming to an end. 

Only those registered as Republican can vote in the Primary and the DIEBOLD machines are still not to be trusted.

Main Stream Media is not to be trusted either.

I see independent vote auditers coming forward in the future.

The NWO aint winning that easily.


Title: Re: Why has Ron Paul not caught on with the Public?
Post by: Volitzer on February 11, 2008, 12:14:12 am
It looks like the Ron Paul for President campaign shall soon be coming to an end. 

Then we'll find another Libertarian Candidate to take his place should he officially bail.  The anti-NAU/anti-NWO issue is far bigger than Ron Paul anyway.   >:(

He's got to stop taking pollign data from just the registered Republicans, far more independents support him that weren't allowed to vote in the primaries which are manipulated anyway.   >:( >:( >:(


Title: Re: Why has Ron Paul not caught on with the Public?
Post by: Kristina on February 11, 2008, 12:44:54 am
Ron Paul has left the building, and soon the race?
by Mark Silva< and updated.

Ron Paul is not here. Well maybe he is. Talking about saving his congressional seat.

He was nowhere in this posting, not to be seen in the halls of the Washington hotel where the Conservative Political Action Convention wraps up today.

Mike Huckabee is here, along with a few dozen mostly young supporters waiting with signs at the door to greet the former governor of Arkansas, the last of the Republican candidates for president to speak here. Paul spoke the other day. So did Mitt Romney, as he was quitting the race, leaving the contest for the party's nomination, apparently, to Sen. John McCain.

The question is, when the contest is finished, where will these people go?

Where will the people who conspired to raise $6 million for Ron Paul in one record day of Internet-fundraisng in December go? Will they settle for McCain, who drew boos among the cheers as he appeared here this week, his party's nominee-apparent?

Will they stay with their party? Or will they move to the third or fourth presidential candidate on the ballot in November? The candidate like Paul, in 1988, when he ran as the Libertarian. He appeared on the ballots in 46 states and drew 431,750 votes, less than one percent.

Now Paul is here: He has ruled out running as a third-party candidate this year, saying in Texas that he is continuing to campaign but also must pay attention to not losing his party's primary for his congressional seat. He wrote on his Web-site that he is cutting his national staff and must focus on keeping his House seat.

"With Romney gone, the chances of a brokered convention are nearly zero," Paul wrote. "But that does not affect my determination to fight on, in every caucus and primary remaining, and at the convention for our ideas, with just as many delegates as I can get."

Paul's latest entry on his Web site also included a request that supporters not neglect his other "priority," which is making sure that he keeps his office. ""If I were to lose the primary for my congressional seat, all our opponents would react with glee, and pretend it was a rejection of our ideas," Paul wrote. "I cannot and will not let that happen."

So, will the people who have campaigned so fervently for the Huckabees and Pauls of the party become one-percenters in November? Or will they rally to their party's cause?

Their candidates may be gone, but the decisions they make in November will have a significant bearing on the outcome of the election on which everyone is so focused here, this cold grey morning in Washington on which Mike Huckabee will take the last candidate's stand at the CPAC, the place where so much doubt about John McCain resides.

Posted by Mark Silva on February 9, 2008 8:30 AM | Permalink

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/ron_paul_has_left_the_building.html


Title: Re: Why has Ron Paul not caught on with the Public?
Post by: Kristina on February 11, 2008, 12:49:12 am
Quote
Then we'll find another Libertarian Candidate to take his place should he officially bail.  The anti-NAU/anti-NWO issue is far bigger than Ron Paul anyway.

I'm not certain that just any Libertarian candidate can inspire the enthusiasm that Ron Paul inspired among his followers.

By the way, Ron Paul was a Libertarian and was their Presidential candidate in 1988, so it isn't like it can't be done.  As the article states:

He appeared on the ballots in 46 states (in 1988) and drew 431,750 votes, less than one percent.


Title: Re: Why has Ron Paul not caught on with the Public?
Post by: Volitzer on February 11, 2008, 01:12:19 am
We'll get our anti-Hegalian candidate one way or another.

Too many see through the corporate/CFR media lies.

We'll have another candidate by Friday.  I don't know who just yet but we will soon.


Title: Re: Why has Ron Paul not caught on with the Public?
Post by: HereForNow on February 11, 2008, 04:38:48 pm
 ;D

As much as I hate to say it, I did once point that voting was "Pointless"....
Again I mean no disrespect, but don't be fooled folks. It's up to the richest, thus most powerful say in the order.


Title: Re: Why has Ron Paul not caught on with the Public?
Post by: Volitzer on February 11, 2008, 05:08:21 pm
Look at age 72 Ron Paul is a 10 term Congressman who has served in the House of Representatives.

He can do more in the Executive seat than he can in the Legislative seat.

He needs to do some soul searching and make up his mind to whether he is going to pander to the fraudulent primaries in the Republican Party, of which many independents and his core supporters were not registered to vote.

He would win the nominiation in a Constitution Party if there ever was one very easily.  Everyone knows the Republican Party has been corrupted by neocons.

With the internet I know a 3rd party would be a viable candidate if we also had independent vote auditors come forward as well.


Title: Re: Why has Ron Paul not caught on with the Public?
Post by: Volitzer on February 11, 2008, 05:25:25 pm
People we have the education and the numbers right now.  If cops and military personnel start dragging people off to FEMA Camps there will be enough of a rebellion to stop all this and enough of cops with good sense to back out of martial law.

But once people start accepting the gun-grabbing cops and the Hegalian candidates it's all over.

Ladies, you are at a focal point.  You have enough rights and intelligence to keep yourselves from being victims of the NWO.

Remember when you vote for the pro-abortion candidate you're enabling eugenic policies a la Hitler and Pol Pot.  If the rights of the unborn aren't protected what makes you think your rights as women will be ??  Cuz you followed "Bimbo's Monthly Magazine's " advice on how to tone up your butt or co-ordinate your clothing ??

I mean there's being a victim and then asking for it.   ::)

Start shifting your collective Anterior-Cingulate-Cortex into high gear for the cause of liberty.


Title: Re: Why has Ron Paul not caught on with the Public?
Post by: Kris Conover on February 12, 2008, 02:49:31 am
;D

As much as I hate to say it, I did once point that voting was "Pointless"....
Again I mean no disrespect, but don't be fooled folks. It's up to the richest, thus most powerful say in the order.


I wouldn't say that.  You just have to get the money out of politics!  Both Barack and Hillary (lately) anyway, have said they want to have campaign financing.  If politicians don't have to raise money for re-election, they won't be beholden to their contributors and can work for the good of the country, which is all we need! 


Title: Re: Why has Ron Paul not caught on with the Public?
Post by: Kris Conover on February 12, 2008, 02:54:10 am
Quote
Ladies, you are at a focal point.  You have enough rights and intelligence to keep yourselves from being victims of the NWO.

Remember when you vote for the pro-abortion candidate you're enabling eugenic policies a la Hitler and Pol Pot.  If the rights of the unborn aren't protected what makes you think your rights as women will be ??  Cuz you followed "Bimbo's Monthly Magazine's " advice on how to tone up your butt or co-ordinate your clothing ??

Don't put your fear of the New World Order on the rest of us, Volitzer, and don't try and marry it with the abortion issue. First, abortion has nothing to do with you, it's between a woman and her doctor and it really isn't any of your business.

Second, if you are so concerned about the New World Order, stop making sexist comments (which don't even help your case) and become a poltical activist.  Anyone can trash the opposite sex, it takes real courage to stand up for change. 



Title: Re: Why has Ron Paul not caught on with the Public?
Post by: Kris Conover on February 12, 2008, 02:59:24 am
Look at age 72 Ron Paul is a 10 term Congressman who has served in the House of Representatives.

He can do more in the Executive seat than he can in the Legislative seat.

He needs to do some soul searching and make up his mind to whether he is going to pander to the fraudulent primaries in the Republican Party, of which many independents and his core supporters were not registered to vote.

He would win the nominiation in a Constitution Party if there ever was one very easily.  Everyone knows the Republican Party has been corrupted by neocons.

With the internet I know a 3rd party would be a viable candidate if we also had independent vote auditors come forward as well.

He's actually a little older than McCain.  I actually expect both to retire within a few years. 
Anyway, you are missing the whole point about why Ron Paul hasn't caught on - it's not just that he stands for the Constitution, he has some really wacky far right positions out there that no one would support.

We have already covered his stand on abortion, but he also wants to abolish all the social programs designed to help people. That is pretty nutty, it only helps the rich and would make people live worse than better. And if you're still for that, than fine, don't accept your Social Security when you're eligible for it.


Title: Re: Why has Ron Paul not caught on with the Public?
Post by: Volitzer on February 12, 2008, 11:38:29 am
Welfare and social security were creations of the government after the Federal Reserve engineered a global depression.

Besides Ron Paul said he's allow people to opt out not be forced out.  Even he realizes that sometimes life circumstances allow people to need these government programs.  Liek I knew a woman who was only 26 and she had fibromyalgia.  Now allowing her to get SSI so that she can live would be an example of someone who can't opt out.  That and mainly the Rust-Belt states who chronically over tax industry thus contributing to their states' level of unemployment.

As far as accepting social security, you mean to say that you don't ever see yourself working 30-35 years for a company and having a nice 401K/IRA retirement fund to live on ?  I know it seems hard to believe now but with sound money and a thriving economy it's mor ethan possible.  Once all of this is factored in your SS check will be proportioned to what your retirement earnings are.  What Ron Paul wants to do is have an economy where a majority of individuals can retire with their own source of income.  Besides the Democrats in Congress will never allow Social Security to be disbanded.  Ron Paul knows better than that.


Title: Re: Why has Ron Paul not caught on with the Public?
Post by: Volitzer on February 12, 2008, 11:46:36 am

Don't put your fear of the New World Order on the rest of us, Volitzer, and don't try and marry it with the abortion issue. First, abortion has nothing to do with you, it's between a woman and her doctor and it really isn't any of your business.

Second, if you are so concerned about the New World Order, stop making sexist comments (which don't even help your case) and become a poltical activist.  Anyone can trash the opposite sex, it takes real courage to stand up for change. 



Planned Parenthood was started by a eugenicist.  Look it up.    :o

Don't lecture me on courage, it takes real courage to advocate for the rights of the unborn against people who think it's their "right" to carry out eugenics/abortions.  If your parents believed in abortion you wouldn't be around to protest.   ;)


Title: Re: Why has Ron Paul not caught on with the Public?
Post by: Kris Conover on February 12, 2008, 01:17:21 pm
Who cares if Planned Parenthood was started by a eugenicist, a Nazi, a Communist or whoever?  Do you honestly think that if Planned Parenthood wasn't around, women wouldn't be interested in abortion?  Hardly, they would just be using coathangers to get the job done, getting septis and dying from bleeding.  You can look up the history of this country back before Roe vs. Wade was legal.  Women died in droves because the abortions they had were unsafe and unregulated.

It doesn't take any courage for a man to be against abortion, it's actually pretty cowardly - men don't give birth, they could give a crap how difficult it is, and lots of them could care less about the kids once they are born.  Seems to me that it is all about "empowerment" for them, especially the old ones who are frightened by the idea of women's rights.


Title: Re: Why has Ron Paul not caught on with the Public?
Post by: Volitzer on February 12, 2008, 02:01:29 pm
No what's cowardly is how "empowerment" women feel by depriving unborn fetuses the right to life.

Have you ever held a baby ??

Did it ever occur to you that maybe the reason women die in back alley abortions is because it is the consequence of taking another life ??  Just like when men go to war there's an inherent risk of death.

If women are having abortions because the men who impregnate them could 'care less' then it's time for women to get with men who actually do care and are interested in monogamist relationships.  Women have rights now they need to take responsibility.


Title: Re: Why has Ron Paul not caught on with the Public?
Post by: Kris Conover on February 13, 2008, 02:21:03 am
Spoken like a guy who will never give birth to a baby, could care less about the women who do and is brainwashed by his religious upbring.

Volitzer, who gives a damn about what your opinion is about abortion? It's not your life, you certainly haven't shown any compassion for women (that I have seen here anyway), and if you don't give a damn about what a woman has to go through to give birth and raise a child, why would any of them care about you?  You have to give respect to get respect. 

The bottom line is, it's a personal choice, the choice has nothing to do with you, and if you think you (and the other right to lifers) think should have a say in whether a woman gives birth or not, you have deep mental problems. 



Title: Re: Why has Ron Paul not caught on with the Public?
Post by: Kris Conover on February 13, 2008, 02:27:07 am
And the only reason why we even got on abortion is cause the topic author asked the question, "why has Ron Paul not caught on with the public?" 

That's one of the reasons for women, but not the only one!  The other reason is because (like Tom says) he also seems to attract a lot of paranoid conspiracy theorists, like, apparently yourself.

And your position on abortion is cowardly.  No one likes abortion, but only cowards bash women in their arguments against it.  A person can make their argument against it in favor of their personal beliefs, not in villifying women who are, for the most part, forced into that decision because they have no other choice. 

As for women "taking responsibility," I suggest you deliver that lecture to your male friends. 90% of the time, if they had been taking responsibility, a woman wouldn't be seeking an abortion in the first place. 


Title: Re: Why has Ron Paul not caught on with the Public?
Post by: punkrockpriestess on February 13, 2008, 02:31:51 am
No what's cowardly is how "empowerment" women feel by depriving unborn fetuses the right to life.

Have you ever held a baby ??

Did it ever occur to you that maybe the reason women die in back alley abortions is because it is the consequence of taking another life ??  Just like when men go to war there's an inherent risk of death.

If women are having abortions because the men who impregnate them could 'care less' then it's time for women to get with men who actually do care and are interested in monogamist relationships.  Women have rights now they need to take responsibility.

What an asinine set of positions.  You are really brainwashed by your religion. 
And until you get pregnant yourself, I don't want to hear your opinion on what a woman can or cannot do with her own body.


Title: Re: Why has Ron Paul not caught on with the Public?
Post by: punkrockpriestess on February 13, 2008, 02:33:02 am
Probably the same kind of guy that knocks welfare mothers, too.  Make up your mind, jerk.


Title: Re: Why has Ron Paul not caught on with the Public?
Post by: Elmer Jessup on February 14, 2008, 01:41:53 am
No what's cowardly is how "empowerment" women feel by depriving unborn fetuses the right to life.

Have you ever held a baby ??

Did it ever occur to you that maybe the reason women die in back alley abortions is because it is the consequence of taking another life ??  Just like when men go to war there's an inherent risk of death.

If women are having abortions because the men who impregnate them could 'care less' then it's time for women to get with men who actually do care and are interested in monogamist relationships.  Women have rights now they need to take responsibility.

I stand shoulder to shoulder with Volitzer on this.  Abortion is murder! That's why we need to get that last justice in there at the Supreme Court and make it illegal again.  I imagine that then, men and women will return to their rightful places in society once again.


Title: Re: Why has Ron Paul not caught on with the Public?
Post by: Bianca on February 14, 2008, 06:38:31 am




Dream on, Elmer and Volitzer!!!



I WILL DEFEND WITH MY VERY LAST BREATH MY GREAT-GRANDAUGHTERS'




                                               "RIGHT TO CHOOSE"



They will NEVER know the kind of world that you CHAUVINIST PIGS advocate.


I was born, grew up and HAD to live through it and THEY and OTHERS  will  NEVER   know it!!!



QUOTE:


"I imagine that then, men and women will return to their rightful places in society once again. "


Dictated by whom, Elmer?  Ah, yes, the"Good Book"!!!  Good for whom?  The despicable men
who concocted it?


Your TWO THOUSAND YEAR male supremacy HAS COME TO AN END!!!!


Now, go back to AR where, I am sure, you will find an audience:


                                                        BOTH OF YOU!!!


Title: Re: Why has Ron Paul not caught on with the Public?
Post by: Tom Hebert on February 14, 2008, 06:52:40 am
No what's cowardly is how "empowerment" women feel by depriving unborn fetuses the right to life.

Have you ever held a baby ??

Did it ever occur to you that maybe the reason women die in back alley abortions is because it is the consequence of taking another life ??  Just like when men go to war there's an inherent risk of death.

If women are having abortions because the men who impregnate them could 'care less' then it's time for women to get with men who actually do care and are interested in monogamist relationships.  Women have rights now they need to take responsibility.

I stand shoulder to shoulder with Volitzer on this.  Abortion is murder! That's why we need to get that last justice in there at the Supreme Court and make it illegal again.  I imagine that then, men and women will return to their rightful places in society once again.

I concerned that the only place women would be returning to would be the back alleys to have their abortions.  I don't want to see that happen again anywhere in America.


Title: Re: Why has Ron Paul not caught on with the Public?
Post by: Bianca on February 14, 2008, 07:01:41 am





I definitely agree, Tom!!!  I well remember those days!!!


People will do what THEY want, regardless.....

While abortion was NEVER in MY vocabulary, I would NEVER presume to tell others what
to do about THEIR lives, especially if that would not be something that I would Not be in
a position to ever experience - like Elmer and Volitzer.... 

Isn't there a matter of FREE WILL here, also?


Title: Re: Why has Ron Paul not caught on with the Public?
Post by: Derek on February 14, 2008, 11:15:47 am
I totally agree, Tom and Bianca.  I don't think anyone really likes abortion, on the other hand, who wants to tell everyone what to do with their lives?  And I also don't think government should use laws to set laws over women's bodies, that's their business.

And religion should be taken out of the equation altogether, as far as government is concerned.


Title: Re: Why has Ron Paul not caught on with the Public?
Post by: Volitzer on February 14, 2008, 05:33:35 pm
You guys are a bunch of hypocrites.

If women or black people were denied the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness you'd see all kinds of protesting.  Yet to deprive fetuses of these basic rights you don't see any conflict of interest.

A fetus is not your body, when the embryo is fertilized it ceases to be that.

Women got the pill, and if it fails they can get guys to use condoms.

Birht control isn't difficult.


Title: Re: Why has Ron Paul not caught on with the Public?
Post by: Volitzer on February 15, 2008, 01:25:01 am
I totally agree, Tom and Bianca.  I don't think anyone really likes abortion, on the other hand, who wants to tell everyone what to do with their lives?  And I also don't think government should use laws to set laws over women's bodies, that's their business.

And religion should be taken out of the equation altogether, as far as government is concerned.

Government sets these kinds of laws because women and abortionists don't care about fetus' rights.


Title: Re: Why has Ron Paul not caught on with the Public?
Post by: Kris Conover on February 23, 2008, 04:41:47 pm
You guys are a bunch of hypocrites.

If women or black people were denied the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness you'd see all kinds of protesting.  Yet to deprive fetuses of these basic rights you don't see any conflict of interest.

A fetus is not your body, when the embryo is fertilized it ceases to be that.

Women got the pill, and if it fails they can get guys to use condoms.

Birht control isn't difficult.

A fetus doesn't have the same rights as a person.  You have to be born to have those same rights, point is, a fetus can't exist without being in the body of a mother.

The whole abortion debate is bogus anyway.  Most abortions are done in the first trimester, before a fetus is technically viable.  Most of those done in the last trimester are out of medical neccessity.  And since men can't have babies, they have no business passing laws about abortion anyway.


Title: Re: Why has Ron Paul not caught on with the Public?
Post by: Kris Conover on February 23, 2008, 04:43:35 pm
I totally agree, Tom and Bianca.  I don't think anyone really likes abortion, on the other hand, who wants to tell everyone what to do with their lives?  And I also don't think government should use laws to set laws over women's bodies, that's their business.

And religion should be taken out of the equation altogether, as far as government is concerned.

Government sets these kinds of laws because women and abortionists don't care about fetus' rights.

No, it passes these laws to appese religious zealots, they don't give a damn abot anything themselves but getting re-elected. 


Title: Re: Why has Ron Paul not caught on with the Public?
Post by: Volitzer on February 23, 2008, 04:49:41 pm
If they pandered to the abortion vote where would the future constituents come from ??

Besides you know how many nightmares and feelings of regret the women who actually have abortions actually have ??


Title: Re: Why has Ron Paul not caught on with the Public?
Post by: April Kincaid on February 23, 2008, 11:15:28 pm
Quote
Besides you know how many nightmares and feelings of regret the women who actually have abortions actually have ??

The only studies that state that women are irrevocably traumatized by abortions are those phantom studies done by rabid right wingers.

A good part of the women who have abortions actually end up having more than one. If they are so traumatized why having more than one?  Answer, they aren't, it depends on the woman.

By the way, being pro-choice doesn't mean you are "for" abortion, it just means you don't think it's the government's business telling you when you can have one.


Title: Re: Why has Ron Paul not caught on with the Public?
Post by: Volitzer on February 23, 2008, 11:21:53 pm
What of all the women who claim to see spiritual manifestations of their aborted baby in their dreams ??

You can't blame that on right wingers.


Title: Re: Why has Ron Paul not caught on with the Public?
Post by: April Kincaid on February 23, 2008, 11:26:43 pm
That sounds like a fairytale if you ask me.


Title: Re: Why has Ron Paul not caught on with the Public?
Post by: Volitzer on February 23, 2008, 11:41:25 pm
Up until 2 years ago I never heard such a thing.


Title: Re: Why has Ron Paul not caught on with the Public?
Post by: April Kincaid on February 23, 2008, 11:54:44 pm
There is all sorts of propaganda that right wingers slop out there to further their agenda.  And guess what?  They don't like birth control either!

If they had their way, every married couple would have twelve kids, everyone would be broke all the time and miserable.

Give me a break!  They should just shut up and leave people alone.


Title: Re: Why has Ron Paul not caught on with the Public?
Post by: Volitzer on February 24, 2008, 12:08:00 am
There is all sorts of propaganda that right wingers slop out there to further their agenda.  And guess what?  They don't like birth control either!


True, but ghost-babies in dreams.  The abortion argument has been around a lot longer than that.

Nothing wrong with birth control, if you keep the sperm and the egg from uniting via a condom or medicine.  Also if ovulation periods could be tracked and avoided.

Just last month my girlfriend and I decided not to use any birth control pill cuz it was making her sick.  Thank God for ultra-thin condoms, we both get the sensations and she gets the protection.   :)


Title: Re: Why has Ron Paul not caught on with the Public?
Post by: Tom Hebert on February 24, 2008, 04:36:00 am
I have nightmares about the Republican Party.  So shouldn't we ban the GOP as well?


Title: Re: Why has Ron Paul not caught on with the Public?
Post by: Volitzer on February 24, 2008, 04:48:00 pm
I have nightmares about the Republican Party.  So shouldn't we ban the GOP as well?


I have nightmares of people buying the CFR's dog & pony show.  Just 2 nights ago a had a dream in which I had an argument trying to explain the unconstitutionality of the 16th Amendment to a woman.    :o :o :o

I need a break...  :P



Title: Re: Why has Ron Paul not caught on with the Public?
Post by: April Kincaid on February 24, 2008, 05:14:55 pm
I have nightmares about the Republican Party.  So shouldn't we ban the GOP as well?


I wish!  What a bunch of greedy SOBs.  The same kind of people used to run France before they had a revolution!   :)


Title: Re: Why has Ron Paul not caught on with the Public?
Post by: Volitzer on February 24, 2008, 08:42:20 pm

I wish!  What a bunch of greedy SOBs.  The same kind of people used to run France before they had a revolution!   :)

Imperial fascists ran France ??  Can you site a source from a certain period in history ?


Title: Re: Why has Ron Paul not caught on with the Public?
Post by: HereForNow on February 25, 2008, 05:50:41 pm
There is all sorts of propaganda that right wingers slop out there to further their agenda.  And guess what?  They don't like birth control either!


True, but ghost-babies in dreams.  The abortion argument has been around a lot longer than that.

Nothing wrong with birth control, if you keep the sperm and the egg from uniting via a condom or medicine.  Also if ovulation periods could be tracked and avoided.

Just last month my girlfriend and I decided not to use any birth control pill cuz it was making her sick.  Thank God for ultra-thin condoms, we both get the sensations and she gets the protection.   :)


I had to quote you on this Volitzer: Also if ovulation periods could be tracked and avoided.



 :) To your last post. How did the french revolution begin?


Title: Re: Why has Ron Paul not caught on with the Public?
Post by: April Kincaid on February 25, 2008, 10:17:00 pm
The French revolution began when all the French peasants began starving while the rich elite of the country continued to live lives of opulence.

You remember the old saying by Marie Antoinette, "Let them eat cake!"  That's what she supposedly said about the plight of the peasants.

Well, the peasants got pissed, stormed the castle and overthrew the government.

Later on, the got Napoleon, but that is another story...


Title: Re: Why has Ron Paul not caught on with the Public?
Post by: Volitzer on February 25, 2008, 10:36:16 pm
Aside from all the wars Napolean started at least he wanted to get rid of monarchs in favor of represenatative government.

Nostradamus lists him as an anti-christ but aside form his warmongering he really was a good push for the global democracy movement.


Title: Re: Why has Ron Paul not caught on with the Public?
Post by: Vernon Guilley on February 26, 2008, 03:20:42 pm
He hasn't caught on cause he is unpariotic and don't support the war in Iraq.  Where's the mystery?


Title: Re: Why has Ron Paul not caught on with the Public?
Post by: Volitzer on February 26, 2008, 03:31:01 pm
70% of his campaign contributions come from the military.

Ron Paul Trouncing Neo-Con Rival In Race For Congressional Seat
Peden campaign putting out fake numbers when in reality 80 per cent of District have never even heard of him.

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, February 26th, 2008
     


Ron Paul's Neo-Con rival Chris Peden has resorted to putting out fake poll numbers in a crass attempt to offset the fact that Paul is trouncing him in the race for Texas' District 14 Congressional seat.

According to Ron Paul's congressional campaign manager Mark Elam, the Congressman holds a healthy 72% to 11% lead over Peden, up from 60% last month following the purchase of $400,000 worth of TV ads now running in the district.

In addition, District 14 polls show that 80 per cent of residents have never even heard of Peden.

Asked why Peden's office was putting out false polls showing him 10 points ahead of Paul, Elam said, "Our Democratic opponent said the same thing last year - I think we won by 20 points. These guys are doing so poorly that they have to put out false numbers."

(Article continues below)


I have personally overseen 4 different political surveys in district 14 in recent weeks," writes Elam, "All 4 surveys have shown the same results: Ron Paul has a high favorable rating and high marks on his job approval. And if the election were held today, 60+ percent of the GOP voters say they would vote to reelect Ron Paul, while only 18-20% chose Peden. The remaining 20% or so say they are undecided or refuse to give an answer to these scientific and statistically accurate surveys."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRISON PLANET.TV - A FACTORY OF RESISTANCE!
Download ENDGAME now to understand the true scope of conspiracy for global population reduction.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Peden's Neo-Con platform brazenly advocates occupying the Middle East for "the remainder of the century," maintaining a close alliance with Israel, and spending taxpayer's money on imperial expansionism, including the continued occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Since such positions are anathema to the Constitution and the vision of the founding fathers, it's no surprise that Ron Paul is set to hammer Peden and has dwarfed his fundraising, raking in $500,000 in the past month compared to Peden's pathetic $20,000.

The Ron Paul campaign recently decided to shift some campaigning efforts into safeguarding Paul's Congressional seat after Peden broke a promise not to run against Paul during his presidential bid.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-t_YD-sDhw


Title: Re: Why has Ron Paul not caught on with the Public?
Post by: HereForNow on February 27, 2008, 01:17:23 pm
;D



I think it's funny that Our good friend Volitzer can support atleast 85% of his statements up with several credible different sources. Note that our not so friendly co-members attempt to continue support an act of terror commited by this once great nation, because the war is all they have left to talk about.


Title: Re: Why has Ron Paul not caught on with the Public?
Post by: HereForNow on February 27, 2008, 01:21:50 pm
 ;) What do you think they will talk about after Bush steps down and the new commander steps up to bat?




More BS? Likely!


Title: Re: Why has Ron Paul not caught on with the Public?
Post by: Volitzer on February 27, 2008, 03:34:09 pm
This is what the Bilderbergers are counting on.  They are figuring the sheeple will be clueless as to catch on.

Thanks to the Alex Jones/Lou Dobbs effect tho we've set global government back at least 20 years.

Congratulations all.

Just remember vote anti-CFR this fall.


Title: Re: Why has Ron Paul not caught on with the Public?
Post by: Volitzer on February 27, 2008, 07:22:29 pm
Ron Paul giving CFR Ben Bernake a royal grillin' !!!!!!!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FX9Uei89TuE&eurl=http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2008/022708_deliberately_destroying.htm