PDA

View Full Version : Progressives, are you voting for Ron Paul?



Torreno
10-30-2011, 03:38 PM
So now that we know that Obama

Supports corporate welfare
extented the bush tax cuts
invaded more middle east countries
extended the patriot act
put the nation more in debt

while Ron Paul

Is Against militarism
Against corporatism
against the patriot act
against money currency manipulation

Are you going to vote for him? Or are you voting for the same guy who receives money from big pharma, private defense, finance, banking,big oil companies?

AndyRosato
10-30-2011, 04:18 PM
I'm either voting Ron Paul or Rick Perry idk yet.

Scrappy
10-30-2011, 04:51 PM
My vote goes with Herman Cain.

MoneyMack
10-30-2011, 06:10 PM
Why waste a vote on Perry or Cain? You may as well vote for Obama because you'll be gettin the same thing. All 3 of them are being propped up by the bankers. Perry is paid off by Big Phrma which is why he, by executive order in Texas, passed a law forcing children to get vaccinated with Gardasil, a drug that has killed and\ormaimed thousands of girls and women across the world. And now they're trying to force it on boys. Cain use to work for the Federal Reserve bank of Kansas City so he knows the currency manipulation game. Oh, and he feels that if you're unemployed and not rich like he is then it's your own fault. Really?

And those are the types of people you want to lead your country? Those examples don't even scratch the surface of what kind of people they are.

The only option for this country is Ron Paul. If you don't wanna stop the wars, stop starting unnecessary wars, improve the economy, have a sound currency, reduce government spending, get rid of the patriot act, get rid of homeland security, stop the tsa grope downs at the airports that are coming soon to a mall and school near you, end the fed, end forced inoculation of your children, stop the chemtrail program that is poisoning us and the soil...the list goes on...then yea go ahead and vote for anybody except Ron Paul.

Vito_Lucchese
10-30-2011, 07:59 PM
Yea! Ron Paul has my VOTE with FULL SUPPORT! :-)

sketchy
10-30-2011, 08:00 PM
See what all such imagines get you.



Pure convoluted nothings.

sketchy
10-30-2011, 08:01 PM
Star trek, heh.

Danzig
10-30-2011, 08:02 PM
I like alot of what Ron Paul stands for. I love that the Republicans consider themselves conservative and are the farthest thing from conservitism.

sketchy
10-30-2011, 08:09 PM
any security that leads to (because it is) a False sense of security is nothing good.

Popebenedict
10-30-2011, 08:11 PM
I don't even know why this thread exists, Ron Paul will never win the Republican primary and it's difficult to dispute that, he is arguably a democrat in policy and the republican "base" would never send him up as their candidate for the general election.

And really, the stuff you Ron Paul supporters sputter out is silly,


If you don't wanna stop homeland security, If you don't wanna end the fed, then yea go ahead and vote for anybody except Ron Paul.

So you think having 0 homeland security is a good thing? You think all the other countries in the world will simply leave us alone if we promise not to have a military anymore? Unfortunately, that is not how the world works. Save the fact, if you did that, you would unemployee at least another 3-4 million people who are currently paid by the military services.

As for your hate of the feds, do you even know what they do? I will bet the only information you have about the federal reserve bank comes from conspiracy theory videos and this other garbage Ron Paul fanatics feed you.


In reference to Herman Cain:

Oh, and he feels that if you're unemployed and not rich like he is then it's your own fault. Really?

Not sure where you are getting this from, Cain does not say "if you're not rich and/or unemployed it's your own fault." He DOES stress the need for personal responsibility and says we should not simply blame corporate America for our personal short comings; for instance, many people are complaining that it is the banks fault for giving them these toxic mortgages, saying they are losing their houses "because of the banks"... last time I checked, the banks did not tell you which house to buy, they did not force you to sign a contract with them, that was your PERSONAL choice and you should take responsibility for making a poor financial decision. People like to pass the blame onto others and that is the core problem he tries to address.

sketchy
10-30-2011, 08:14 PM
4

4 3 2 1


4 3 2 1


4

sketchy
10-30-2011, 08:28 PM
Although Ron Paul provides neutrality as his main agenda when it comes to foreign entanglements,it is irrational to believe the absents of America is never the less, apperent. through all systems in that American systems have lost control, transperancy has been reduced to point 0.

sketchy
10-30-2011, 08:30 PM
and

1 2 3 4



1 2 3 4

sketchy
10-30-2011, 08:31 PM
You again? lol

Danzig
10-30-2011, 09:06 PM
You again? lol

jackey
10-30-2011, 10:27 PM
The only option for this country is Ron Paul. If you don't wanna stop the wars, stop starting unnecessary wars, improve the economy, have a sound currency, reduce government spending, get rid of the patriot act, get rid of homeland security, stop the tsa grope downs at the airports that are coming soon to a mall and school near you, end the fed, end forced inoculation of your children, stop the chemtrail program that is poisoning us and the soil...the list goes on...then yea go ahead and vote for anybody except Ron Paul.


Although Ron Paul provides neutrality as his main agenda when it comes to foreign entanglements,it is irrational to believe the absents of America in foreign problems would go unfilled by someone else. Especially at a point in time where China is consuming power at a consistent rate.
I also believe that Ron Paul, as pope stated, will never win the republican primary. In my belief, Ron Paul is too lackadaisical and timid to be president. He even fails to make efficient and effective decision making.About 4yrs ago,does anyone remember the proposal of a 400 billion dollar reduction of all earmarks Ron Paul requested? He tried to cut government spending with a ridiculous bill he tried to get passed; as a result, when he found out that his earmark plan was not going to pass, he tried to cover up his finger prints on HIS BILL he created by voting against it. Reducing earmarks does not reduce government spending, and it does not prohibit spending upon those things that are earmarked. Now that was a good example of Lack of effective and efficient judgment.

But wait, there's more...

"All 3 of them are being propped up by the bankers."-MoneyMack
so basically what your saying that they are currupt and not truthful in their intentions.Well let Fox news tell you about your so called,"The only option for this country is Ron Paul-MoneyMack.

A spokesman in the Fox News article says,"What people who push earmark reform are doing is they are particularly misleading the public—and I have to presume it's not by accident."

hmm that sounds he is implying that Mr paul had a tainted intention with his earmark plan. He not only failed at trying to pass a lame bill, he vaguely revealed a mischievous intention


Also,I find it comical that Ron Paul says he will create jobs and improve the economy. in fact he blesses us with the overly used euphemistic statement ' lower spending and smaller government control' to some what capture the ears of Americans who want the debt cut and want job, and Businesses who want more freedom to grow.However, if we look at specifically at his plan, it shows he wants to cut government departments that are considered nonessential to America. For example, he wishes to cut the Department of commerce. Well if you are not aware , the D.O.C deals with job creation and growth of the Economy.


so in conclusion,

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-_BB0JL7Ok8A/ThsEsQcyG_I/AAAAAAAAAOE/QlCMuvvAbkI/s1600/paul-10x10-1.jpg

Torreno
10-31-2011, 02:15 AM
I dont think you saw his plan at a full glance. No your wrong, he is not going to elimate the military to the point where we dont have a military like you said. He is going to reduce it to the FY06 were it was around 512 Billion and then it would be steadily increasing againg. To me 512 Billion is still alot.Do you really think China or Iran are really going to do something really bad if we decrease our military budget? The Soviet Union had more than 30,000 nukes, was a stronger nation than us for a time, and hated capitalism....did not do shit. Right now are military budget is about 750 Billon... really dude? What extraterrestial planet are we invading?


Oh and yes, we can go sent out drones into countries that we dont have any bussiness, and take out targets and cause collateral damage, but we cant go check out our banking system, where they keep printing out money, which inflate prices and cause the value of the dollar to go down?

Ron Paul is too timid to be president? Now i am not sure of that...but...what does that matter? What, you want a confident, good looking fella that keeps fucking you in the ass, but talks in a nice way like always?

And yes, his plan is to abolish several programs, but thats because does programs are going to be merged into other programs.

He brings a new political spectrum into politics, of course the status quo is going to try to make him look extreem, and crazy...but dont you want something new, besides the same two guys from the two parties, that are practically the same?

sketchy
10-31-2011, 02:18 AM
Melt all faces. Damned be names that do not have matter.

Torreno
10-31-2011, 03:26 AM
I know right