Ron Paul Supporters: Who else besides Ron?

The Body is my VP dream pick

reply to post by SaturnFX


I know this may sound out of whack for a Ron Paul supporter, especially since him being somewhat of a socialist, but I believe Bernie Sanders would make a great counter-point to Ron Paul in the White House. Both are ideologically similar, but enough separates them, in fiscal and social issues, to really put a respectable change on the country without straying too far left or right.

Also, in my home state of WV, I really like a guy from the Mountain Party, which is our version of the national Green party. Sure, I know they are somewhat environmentalists, but that's generally a good thing so long as it's for the betterment of society while preserving natural ecosystems. All in all, a good balanced approach away from the status-quo is what we need. While Ron Paul has a lot of answers, he doesn't have them all, so we need non-establishment liberals and leftists as well.

reply to post by SaturnFX


We have a national crisis where our economy is going down the tubes. Trillions are being spent on illegal wars. Americans are being thrown out of their homes because they cannot find employment. Obamacare is killing small business. The dollar is on life support. We have the highest prison population in the world. And you're worried about gay soldiers being able to openly flaunt their sexuality in combat?! Are you serious?

^ This is the disconnect between people that will vote for Ron Paul and mindless sheep that will vote for a 2nd term to Obama.

Originally posted by e11888
Napalitano is also a very good choice for VP. I dont agree with you on Ventura but Napalitano just feels right.

Corporate shill (like Paul).
He was in favor of unlimited donations to campaigns...

The argument...corporations are people, because people own corporations (sure, foreign investors amongst them).

So...anything a person owns = people...my cup of coffee demands a voice.

My pets are owned by me, therefore are people

Nonsense transparent corporatism that has infiltrated the legal system in my opinion...and not even by american corporatists either, but international corporatists

And guess who has a major stake in american corporations...yep..china.
So ya..glad they paved the way for chinese interests to decide american politics.

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by type0civ
Well that's Obama's platform. Redistribute the wealth. But i'm not wealthy. I make around $50,000 a year and 12,000 to state and fed taxes to give to you, or well your parents, maybe.

Do you even understand why you support him? He preaches class warfare and envy.

Congratulations on your tax break under obama...and they said the stimulus wasn't welcomed...pah.

You realize the difference between a 3rd world disaster nation and a thriving nation is a strong, stable, comprehensive tax policy, right? If you don't like the concept of taxes...here is a plan...find a nation on earth that has no taxes.

Now report on the nation...tell us your findings

There actually are nations like this btw...really...totally are. So, find your utopia and tell me if you would live there.

The middle class is a synthetic invention required to keep a stable democracy...stable. please understand this most basic economic fact...there is no such thing as a middle class in any structure outside of socialism...capitalism leads to corporatism leads to monopoly. We are in corporatism now and although we have anti-monopoly laws (which many are trying to remove), it is arguably the same group that now holds all the wealth.

Redistribution of wealth is called taxes, and every nation (except a few your about to research on) does just that...the second the tax man takes a penny from you and spends it on something you don't use, guess what...thats redistribution...be it paving a road a thousand miles away from you, teaching a kid that is not yours, etc...yet without this, there would be no roads, there would be very few literate people in the nation, and the corps would own you completely..so please...stop with the jingoistic talking points programmed into you by corporatists...do some research...try to find the actual truth beyond the partisan bobbleheads yammering 3 word slogans that are as transparent and shallow as a spoonful of water.

I will gladly pay for infrastructure and a strong national defense. But MY money is also spent on needles exchange programs and foreign aid to our enemies you bafoon. last year people I know were getting 10,000 dollars tax refunds when they paid ZERO! That is redistributing the wealth.

MY money is not well spent on any program the govt has established. Theyve all been a total failure, you have no idea what your talking about.

Ha! I missed the other post where you slipped race into the equation. What is wrong with you? I've spent 4 years in the Army and never seen it as a problem. George Washington was the first to integrate black into the front lines. Again you have no idea what your talking about. You get your info from CNN and such.

reply to post by SaturnFX

Who would you like to see? And why...

Former Georgia Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney is my choice. I always said during Obama's campaign that everyone was backing the wrong black candidate.

O'Reilly on McKinney

In one of her appearances she told the story of how another Congressman had told her once that; Once you get in they let you have the keys to the filing cabinet, and you are allowed to look, but your not supposed to tell what you find there. She has a history of calling it as she sees it and making everyone uncomfortable in the process. I like that.

Twice spent out of office by the Republicans - no I do not think Ron will win the Republican National Nomination, therefore he would be free to pick whoever he wants to - Cynthia tends to keep coming back.

Also, I think that would be a nice touch for a Republican, who is running independently, to pick someone from across the isle as a running mate. Major media could not and would not be able to resist using this as ammo against the pair, and Ron would gain recognition and publicity for it. Considering Madonna has proved time and time again that there is no bad publicity any more, and Ron needs publicity more than anything.

Rather than working to his detriment, I think the prevailing dissatisfaction with the political situation would translate the Bipartisan team into a plus, despite the spin the media would work overtime on. Of course this would make no dent on the Fox-omatons, but nothing ever does.

Also I like her style; she always gives me goose bumps when she let's cats out of bags.

Who else would I vote for? No one. Unless another with Paul's ideals were to show up. As far as VP goes, I would have to trust Ron Paul's judgement because I don't see anyone right now who would fit the bill. I wouldn't oppose Jessie Ventura, but he has already stated he doesn't want the job. I have heard people say Herman Cain would make a great VP, but I just don't know enough about him yet to make that kind of decision. If Ron Paul doesn't become president, I'll just put more effort into to stocking up on food and fortifying my house, because you know it won't be long until the economy gets so bad that that we start having riots. If it gets too bad, there are a few countries in Europe that are starting to look pretty good.

Who else besides Ron Paul?

What do you mean who else?
I don't care if he gets a nomination or not!
We all know he won't that's why there is a write-in ballot.

He will get a write-in vote!
And the millions of people who think the same should do the same.

There is no other choice.


PS: I love how you think he's a corporate shill.
Typical.
He's no shill. He believes in no interference from the federal gov't.
Because what you said about him is a fallacy.
He didn't agree with another federal regulation against corporate donations.
Another federal regulation!? It had absolutely nothing to do with corporatism!
It has to do with Paul being against any new Federal powers and I stand with him on that.
Yea...I believe we have enough of those already.



Get your facts straight SaturnFX.

Or this thread will burn like the other Paul bashing garbage.

reply to post by SaturnFX
Hey, that's not very nice...I suppose.

My VP options, pending vetting - Walter Williams (although Rockdisjoint has already recommended against), Gary Johnson, the Judge...perhaps even Bachmann.

Instead of Ron Paul...only picking from current or likely candidates? If I had to pick one, probably Johnson, unless I find myself suprisingly pleased at some point by one of the more recognized people.
I can't get behind the militarism or desire for authority in people's lives.

Originally posted by e11888
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

We have a national crisis where our economy is going down the tubes. Trillions are being spent on illegal wars.

Yep, to quote a ancient and wise saying..."War, uhh, good god man, what is it good for? Absolutely nothin!"

On this issue, I am a full fledged Paul supporter...wave the Ron white and blue flag with full "yup" agreement

Americans are being thrown out of their homes because they cannot find employment.

Yep, this is a issue, and no candidate is addressing the issue...instead they just point that out the obvious then move on to the next talking point.

Obamacare is killing small business.

no...its not.
This is a long answer, but why bother, you won't read it...so will just go with a matter of factly "no"

The dollar is on life support.

See above about root of the issue

And you're worried about gay soldiers being able to openly flaunt their sexuality in combat?!

No...not worried at all. Just decided to point out one thing that exposes the statement that he has done nothing but lie as a lie in itself...it was one of many campaign promises (end dadt). I am not hung up on it either way beyond a general debate point

Are you serious?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/066e8610ab9f.gif[/atsimg]

^ This is the disconnect between people that will vote for Ron Paul and mindless sheep that will vote for a 2nd term to Obama.

edit on 17-8-2011 by e11888 because: (no reason given)

Ahh, all those whom do not vote for your guy = sheep

And therefore, you...considering you are voting for your guy...are clearly enlightened and sagelike.

mhmm.

Originally posted by e11888
I believe its a legal issue that you cannot have someone in your family run as your VP.

edit on 17-8-2011 by e11888 because: (no reason given)

Not it is not!!!

The president could pick his MOTHER..

Might not be a good idea but ideally they actually could...

I can't wait for chris christie to get in next time around..

The RON PAUL TIPPING POINT!!

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by havok
Who else besides Ron Paul?

What do you mean who else?
I don't care if he gets a nomination or not!
We all know he won't that's why there is a write-in ballot.

He will get a write-in vote!
And the millions of people who think the same should do the same.

There is no other choice.


PS: I love how you think he's a corporate shill.
Typical.
He's no shill. He believes in no interference from the federal gov't.
Because what you said about him is a fallacy.
He didn't agree with another federal regulation against corporate donations.
Another federal regulation!? It had absolutely nothing to do with corporatism!
It has to do with Paul being against any new Federal powers and I stand with him on that.
Yea...I believe we have enough of those already.



Get your facts straight SaturnFX.

Or this thread will burn like the other Paul bashing garbage.

Judge Napolitano: "The 20-year-old ruling had forbidden any political spending by groups such as corporations, labor unions, and advocacy organizations (like the NRA and Planned Parenthood, for example). Ruling that all persons, individually and in groups, have the same unfettered free speech rights, the court blasted Congress for suppression of that speech. In effect, the court asked, “What part of ‘Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech’ does Congress not understand?” Thus, all groups of two or more persons are free to spend their own money on any political campaigns and to mention the names of the candidates in their materials."

The rest of The Judge's article:

www.foxnews.com...

Ron Paul: "One side will argue, 'Well corporations don't have rights, only individuals have rights!' Well, individuals own the corporations."

Don't let the facts step in the way of your illusions of course.
Lockstep corporatism
Source

Originally posted by type0civ

I will gladly pay for infrastructure and a strong national defense. But MY money is also spent on needles exchange programs and foreign aid to our enemies you bafoon. last year people I know were getting 10,000 dollars tax refunds when they paid ZERO! That is redistributing the wealth.

I was about to respond to this post...then I seen this:

you bafoon.

And I realized I already won the discussion with you...If you must resort to personal insults, that means clearly your reasoning and stance is weak and flawed...aka, you lost in being rational so now you must attack personally.

Have a nice day

Yep, this is a issue, and no candidate is addressing the issue...instead they just point that out the obvious then move on to the next talking point.

What? Have you even listened to the man speak?

no...its not.
This is a long answer, but why bother, you won't read it...so will just go with a matter of factly "no"

Right. Thats why big business (like McDonalds) is exempt from his health care plan while small business is FORCED to purchase health care for their employees. Thats not an advantage to eliminate competition is it? No... Im sorry, I cant make this any more simple. Im truly sorry if you dont understand.

Ahh, all those whom do not vote for your guy = sheep

And therefore, you...considering you are voting for your guy...are clearly enlightened and sagelike.

mhmm.

No... I see a man with a 30 year reputation for standing up for the American people and the Constitution of the United States. I see a man that has never voted to increase taxes and the only man in this race that will bring our troops home and end the illegal wars that are costing us trillions a year. If you believe the Constitution is 'too extreme' for the United States then maybe you should move to Canada.

Originally posted by Praetorius
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

Hey, that's not very nice...I suppose.

Just goading people into stating a name verses give the typical runaround...sometimes people only respond to such goading verses direct questioning.

Originally posted by nwdogg1982
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

I know this may sound out of whack for a Ron Paul supporter, especially since him being somewhat of a socialist, but I believe Bernie Sanders would make a great counter-point to Ron Paul in the White House.

Actually...thats a very interesting answer.

Two people so polar opposite and fringe on their "sides"...either it would be an absolute disaster, or something good may come from it.

Would certainly shake things up a bit...I would be for that for a term to see what comes of it.

reply to post by SaturnFX


Yes, bafoon: Fool, idiot, one who pretents to know something but does not.

Sorry but it fits with you totally

You said "jingoistic" as in extreme nationalism? how are made statements that at all.

Again Bafoon. Not a personal attack, but an evaluation of your statements.

Good question. I can't really say that I am fully supporting anyone yet. Yes,I have become a fan of Ron Paul, but as you indicated,there is a better chance of me getting hit by lighting 12 times in a row, than of Ron Paul getting elected.


Hmm, I admit I like Herman Cain a bit. Some of the things he had to say, but I can't say I would fully back him.

That is just as far as the GOP goes,anyway.

Originally posted by type0civ
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

Yes, bafoon: Fool, idiot, one who pretents to know something but does not.

Sorry but it fits with you totally

Sure...I do not know your version of things seen and filtered through your eyes.
Also why I tend to source statements I make...I tend to go with not my personal view based on -crickets- but actually get my view based on a collection of events..I personally know some stuff, but in order to put forward a coherent argument, its best to site stuff based in factual history.

I am sure your vision based on =fill in blank= is more relevant than my pointing out stuff...so feel free to keep insulting verses adding any opposition...I am sure that is somehow helping your stance out.

You said Jingonistic as in extreme nationalism? how are made statements that at all.

This made no sense..rephrase..or not...if non-sense was the intent. Creative articulation?

Again Bafoon. Not a personal attack, but an evaluation of your statements.

edit on 17-8-2011 by type0civ because: More stuff

Ahh, an evaluation of my statements...which one, the questions, the sourced facts, or the observations? -waits for the enlightened one to show me the errors of my bafoon ways-

Typically "you types" simply throw your hands up in the air and call me a sheep now verses actually discuss...easier that way really.

reply to post by SaturnFX


I'm not sure what your saying, but let ME give you a version of real acutual events just for the heck of it

*Free health care was the buzz word for some time.(nothing is ever free)

*Then Obamacare was FORCED on America.

*Then my insurance premiums are raised AS A DIRECT RESULT OF THIS LEGISLATION.

**And you said take it up with the insurance company. You are totally disconnected from reality. This isnt filtered through my eyes but fact.

And what about this statement, this does not reflect your thoughts

...I tend to go with not my personal view based on -crickets- but actually get my view based on a collection of events..I personally know some stuff, but in order to put forward a coherent argument, its best to site stuff based in factual history.

Such as gays in the military? what actual history are you refencing? The actual history of the US military shows it was just fine with rules it has had in place for years.

Your a fraud.