Candidates who stand in the way of a Ron Paul Revolution

Rick Perry. Late comer to the race so we'll look at him first.



Rick Perry was a democrat in 1988 and supported Al Gore.

Rick Perry made an executive order in 2007 mandating all sixth grade girls to get a gardasil shot, and is now flip flopping on his decision to gain support for his campaign.

If you don't know what gardasil is, here are 10 facts about gardasil.

Rick Perry has doubled Texas debt, something that should not sit well with the tea party.

Rick Perry has relentlessly attempted to impose a trans American super highway privatization scheme on the people of Texas.

If you are still not convinced, here's some more reasons.

Michele Bachmann. Tea party fraudster.



Michele Bachmann voted for the patriot act despite receiving significant feedback from her supporters urging her to reject it.

Michele Bachmann worked four years with the IRS.

Michele Bachmann is advised on foreign policy by PNAC neocon Frank Gaffney.

She made her Iowa straw poll supporters vote for her before allowing them to see Randy Travis.

Rick Santorum. Has no problem with foreign regime change.



In 2006, Rick Santorum claimed he had found the WMD's in Iraq, but they turned out to be pre-1991 munitions that had been dismissed by the Department of Defense.

In 2005 he introduced a bill to bring about regime change in Iran.

However, he has no problem with Haliburton profiting from trade with Iran.


Come on people, we have one candidate that forces vaccines on girls and has doubled the size of Texas debt, another candidate that claims to be a tea partier but worked for the IRS and votes for the patriot act in opposition to her constituency, and another candidate who claimed to have found the WMD's in Iraq, has no problem with regime change in Iran, and allows special exceptions for Haliburton to trade with Iran. Is this really even a choice at all? Let's actually give Obama a challenge and not a candidate that the special interests and corporations will benefit from regardless of who wins. Let's not waste another election year on a John McCain long shot that has no chance and is nothing different from the present path of destruction. So the choice is neocon, neocon, neocon, or Ron Paul.

Sounds like Ron Paul is up against quite a lot. Their records, compared to his measly 40 years in public service, dwarfs his. Clearly he has no chance at beating either of the three.

Upstanding people, I wish I could vote for all three.

Ummm...I think you are forgetting someone.


There is this guy named Mitt Romney....you might not of heard of him...but he isn't doing too shaby.

Might as well take all three, and four if you count Mitt, and smash them into one b/c they are all the same. I don't believe Ron Paul is up against any of those canidates, he's up against the establishment, media, banks and everyone else with there hand in the cookie jar.

Mitt Romney won't make it, because of his name. No one wants a President with the name Mitt - we're all about diverse names. Like Obama, or Bush.

Originally posted by Snorkelbacon
Might as well take all three, and four if you count Mitt, and smash them into one b/c they are all the same. I don't believe Ron Paul is up against any of those canidates, he's up against the establishment, media, banks and everyone else with there hand in the cookie jar.

I could only star your comment once but that star has a square root of a 100.

Dr. Paul's a resilient man, he just keep coming back stronger.

It's sad how the only thing people want to see is the glittery side of politicians and don't want to either search or learn about the dirt on them. Every politician has some sort of evidence that they serve the elite and uphold the status quo.

I have yet to see that from Ron Paul and I doubt I even will. I know a lot of people are waking up but I really hope there's some exponential growth seen before June of next year.

Originally posted by ThinkingCap
Mitt Romney won't make it, because of his name. No one wants a President with the name Mitt - we're all about diverse names. Like Obama, or Bush.

Mitt is a pretty diverse name...more so than Rick, Ron, or Michelle.


If we are going by name diversity...lord help us...because Newt is gonna win.

I have dedicated three threads so far to character assassination of Rick Perry. Rick Santorum is not a threat in any way. Michele Bachmann is probably dumber than Sarah Palin, has no respect for the rule of law, is a constitutionalist only in the sense that she gets her chance to change it from the Bill of Rights to the Bill of Restrictions, and is a neocon on foreign policy. Herman Cain is nobody who is not a threat to anyone outside of his state of Georgia. Newt Gingrich had his chance and blew it. And Mitt Romney is a Pragmatic candidate who has abandoned his pragmatism so as to pander to the tea party inside the GOP.

Mitt Romney holds the Moderate/Liberal wing of the party, which constitutes 20-30%, come 2012 with no threat unless Giuliani steps in. Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry will be fighting for the social conservative base which usually constitutes a good 25-35%. About 5% vote for the minor candidates. 15-25% is anti-Establishment who will vote for Ron Paul. And about 20%, give or take, are swing voters not totally committed to any camp.

There are only two Republicans come 2012 who I could possibly vote for, Ron Paul or Mitt Romney.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

Originally posted by ThinkingCap
Mitt Romney won't make it, because of his name. No one wants a President with the name Mitt - we're all about diverse names. Like Obama, or Bush.

Mitt is a pretty diverse name...more so than Rick, Ron, or Michelle.


If we are going by name diversity...lord help us...because Newt is gonna win.

I was being feces-ish .

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Ummm...I think you are forgetting someone.


There is this guy named Mitt Romney....you might not of heard of him...but he isn't doing too shaby.

Mitt Romney was so low on the Iowa straw poll I must have overlooked him, but it's better to be safe than sorry.

Mitt Romney Believes corporations are people.



As governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney raised state government fees and taxes, including raising fees for marriage and driver's license, and tripled the fee for owning a firearm legally.

Mitt Romney signed a universal health care law in Massachusetts imposing a requirement that all citizens obtain health insurance.

Mitt Romney believes corporations are people. His supporters will say it's because corporations are made up of people. But then why would corporations need to be legal persons? Mostly because

Corporate personhood provides a single entity for easier taxation and regulation, that simplified complex transactions.

This is significant because recently a mystery company that pumped $1 million into a political committee backing Mitt Romney has been dissolved just months after it was formed, leaving few clues as to who was behind one of the biggest contributions yet of the 2012 presidential campaign.

Don't be a fool, the reason they want corporations to be people is so they can have tax loopholes and massive financing under the cover of anonymity.

What we need is for individual rights to remain inviolate, and not to give a new corporate species rights that should belong to the individual.