Its obvious with the Occupy Wall Street nonsense that the nypd is there to bash skulls. The police is effectively working for the corporations. This doesn't take away from the fact the whole situation is stupid to begin with.

10/2/2011 10:17:37 AM

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2011/10/cainmentum.html

Paulmania is runnin' wild in NC at 6%.

10/4/2011 3:31:17 PM

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/65219.html

Five times as many donors as Perry. It is possible that Paul will have more donors than the rest of the field combined.

10/5/2011 3:15:29 PM

^^^What do you mean "effectively" http://www.jpmorganchase.com/corporate/Home/article/ny-13.htm?TB_iframe=true&height=580&width=850

10/5/2011 5:21:36 PM

So Perry pulls in over 17mil while Paul pulls in just over 8mill yet Paul had 5 time the amount of contributors. just going to show you who has the backing of big money in this race.

10/6/2011 10:45:32 AM

^ that's usually how it is.

what will be interesting to see is how much of a drop off there is from this quarter to the next one. while paul should be able to keep up the momentum, perry may drop off given the maximum amount individuals can contribute to the race.

and i'm wondering if he's taking primary and general funds (most likely is) and how much of that he can actually spend during the primary.

10/6/2011 10:57:03 AM

Ron Paul: Free-Market Hero Steve Jobs Earned His Wealth; Bailout Recipients Did Not

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KubZeo5xQ0

Makes some good points about the rule of law and due process with respect to the assassination of Al-Awlaki, as well as a response to Elizabeth Warren's "social contract" crock of shit.

[Edited on October 8, 2011 at 11:23 AM. Reason : ]

10/8/2011 11:19:38 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKfuS6gfxPY

Still wouldn't vote for him because of his stance on gays, abortion, and his archaic obsession with state's rights, but this is a great ad. Too bad the right will just dismiss it as "sympathizing with terrorists".

10/8/2011 8:18:13 PM

ron paul 2016

10/9/2011 1:34:12 PM

^^ that was pretty intense

10/10/2011 1:36:00 PM

^^^ That's a pretty damn good ad

10/10/2011 3:09:40 PM

^^^I'm a huge ron paul supporter, but i thought parts of that ad were a little over the top.

that being said, the obama reference and the "yes we can" chants were a nice touch

10/10/2011 5:26:20 PM

wat

[Edited on October 11, 2011 at 2:32 PM. Reason : #5000]

10/11/2011 2:31:56 PM

How do you people not get this yet? Elections are rigged. Stop acting outraged and start doing something productive/violent.

10/11/2011 3:52:38 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaU89q35yTM&feature=player_embedded

10/11/2011 6:50:49 PM

how does ron paul plan on building more wealth without constructing more pylons?

10/13/2011 11:48:57 AM

^^-

Quote :

"is it sad that im impressed the cops didn't kick the shit out of? him?"

10/13/2011 1:33:25 PM

Quote :

"Ron Paul’s ‘eyebrow toupee’? Droop at debate prompts suspicion"

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/ron-paul-droopy-eyebrow-prompts-suspicion-184456720.html

10/14/2011 6:25:04 PM

Quote :

"Ron Paul’s detailed agenda for America will be disclosed next week and a senior official with his campaign tells The Brody File that it includes eliminating five governmental departments, cutting one trillion dollars in spending and Dr. Paul would take a presidential salary of just $39, 336, which is the median salary of the American worker (The President’s base salary is normally $400,000)."

http://blogs.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/archive/2011/10/14/exclusive-ron-pauls-agenda-to-include-eliminating-cabinet-secretaries-and.aspx

10/15/2011 5:24:09 PM

I think what's more relevant is what is going on with his eyebrows. Does he have eyebrow cancer?

10/17/2011 9:22:25 AM

I saw that eye brow droop and thought WTF is that...hahaha

10/17/2011 3:12:35 PM

Ron Paul Media Blackout Confirmed

http://www.journalism.org/analysis_report/cr

10/17/2011 4:17:07 PM

seems like you wouldn't be worrying so much about the traditional media and what they do. I thought Ron Paul was all about being out of the mainstream and catching on through alt means?

to be sure you've got some creative people on board that can make him go viral.

10/17/2011 4:35:24 PM

Paul would be doing much better right now if he wasn't running as a Republican. With the increasing popularity of Occupy Wall Street, he could have easily jumped in and made huge gains in popularity as an independent. But now he's doomed to being viewed as another member of the establishment.

That being said, I still wouldn't vote for him in the principle that he's just another "strip govt of power."

We don't need smaller government, we need more effective government that's actually representative of the will of the people.

What I don't understand about libertarians, is the perverse notion that stripping government of its power will somehow weaken corporate interests, even though every move of deregulation has proven to strengthen the power of corporations.


Almost every poverty stop-measure of FDR's New Deal has been eroded in the past 30 years, and the conditions of the middle class should prove that these social safety nets are necessary for the functioning of a healthy society. But you guys ain't havin' that, and want to talk about getting rid of one of the last New Deal measures like Social Security and medicare/medicaid so that your parents can rot away when they're older, so that you can opt out of payment today.






[Edited on October 17, 2011 at 8:08 PM. Reason : i'm sure it makes sense in a libertarian fantasyland, though]

10/17/2011 7:51:37 PM

LunaK

Quote :

"what will be interesting to see is how much of a drop off there is from this quarter to the next one. while paul should be able to keep up the momentum, perry may drop off given the maximum amount individuals can contribute to the race. and i'm wondering if he's taking primary and general funds (most likely is) and how much of that he can actually spend during the primary."

and here we go:

Quote :

"Perry's fundraising list is top-heavy with big donors. He got 79 percent of his dollars from donors who gave the legal maximum, $2,500. He can't go back and solicit them again — although he can invite them to give $5,000 to Make Us Great Again, a super PAC that runs, officially independently, alongside his campaign committee."

Quote :

"Perry is weak at the other end of the spectrum, donors of $200 or less. They gave Perry just $698,820 — 4 percent of his total. "

Quote :

"Perry's fundraising isn't a national operation yet. Texas, where he's been governor for a decade, accounts for $9.7 million, or 57 percent of his fundraising."

there is most likely going to be a huge fundraising drop off for him next quarter

http://n.pr/ng30Fa

10/17/2011 9:29:24 PM

Quote :

"Paul would be doing much better right now if he wasn't running as a Republican. With the increasing popularity of Occupy Wall Street, he could have easily jumped in and made huge gains in popularity as an independent. But now he's doomed to being viewed as another member of the establishment."

That's just untrue. If Paul was running as an independent, he wouldn't be mostly ignored, he'd be entirely ignored. At least now he gets a spot in the debates, even if they don't give him nearly as much time. Anyone that listens to what Ron Paul has to say understands that he's not another member of the establishment. If you can't be bothered to listen to what he has to say, then it really doesn't matter because you're going to vote for whoever you're told to vote for.

Quote :

"That being said, I still wouldn't vote for him in the principle that he's just another "strip govt of power." We don't need smaller government, we need more effective government that's actually representative of the will of the people. What I don't understand about libertarians, is the perverse notion that stripping government of its power will somehow weaken corporate interests, even though every move of deregulation has proven to strengthen the power of corporations."

I would recommend reading/watching this piece (http://bigthink.com/ideas/40561) by Penn Jillette, entitled "Reconciling Atheism with Libertarianism." Doesn't seem related, but if you take a look at it you'll see that it is. Here's the meat of it:

Quote :

"My point of view on Libertarianism is, first, let’s stop the things we all agree need to be stopped. Let’s stop, as my partner Teller says, “Let’s stop spending money we don’t have to kill people we don’t know for reasons we don’t understand.” Let’s just stop killing people, that’s really expensive. And Bush and Obama did a lot of that. Then let’s stop… let’s stop all the bailing out of rich people. Let’s stop all the, ‘we’ve got to help people get jobs by giving money to these rich people,’ planning on trickle down from the government. Let’s stop that, you know, as Harry Brown, the Libertarian candidate from 20 years ago used to say, “We spend all this money on tobacco subsidies and all this money educating people not to smoke.” Let’s just stop one of them. We don’t care to begin with, just stop one of them. And I think then, we whittle it down and then, you know, you can make your argument that we still need education, that we still need libraries, that we still need infrastructure. And you’ll probably win with me. The mistake we make with Libertarianism is, I think, is that we start by saying, “Let’s stop the government from doing really stupid stuff.” And people come back with the argument and say, “So you don’t want bridges?” And you go, “Oh, okay.” Can we argue about bridges after we’re out of Afghanistan? Can we argue about bridges after we’ve stopped killing people in Texas for crimes? Can we argue about bridges after there’s no one in prison for marijuana possession and use? Nobody in prison for prostitution. Can we… once we get all that done, can we then have the argument about bridges? "

And, if you read Ron Paul's new budget cutting plan (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/66114.html), you'll see that he's not talking about cutting everything.

[Edited on October 17, 2011 at 9:50 PM. Reason : ^I think the debates are proving that Perry is mentally deficient]

10/17/2011 9:46:39 PM

Quote :

"What I don't understand about libertarians, is the perverse notion that stripping government of its power will somehow weaken corporate interests"

That's not it at all. The government has set up incentives for corporate interests (mainly banks in this context) to act irrationally "greedy". That is, they gave them incentive to take high risks since they personally guaranteed that the risk was covered. Moral hazards and whatnot.

Take that away, and there are market disciplines...like people not wanting to lose their own money by taking stupid risks. People seem to forget that regulations work both ways - they can either force companies to do things (irrational things in this case), or force them to not do certain things. The latter is typically what is thought of as a regulation when having a conversation with John Doe. I also know for a fact that these market disciplines exist and that banks wouldn't have made those stupid ass decisions had they been left to their own devices because all of the healthy banks that were left standing (mostly) didn't engage in that crap.

[Edited on October 17, 2011 at 10:01 PM. Reason : -]

10/17/2011 9:57:27 PM

Quote :

"That's just untrue. If Paul was running as an independent, he wouldn't be mostly ignored, he'd be entirely ignored. At least now he gets a spot in the debates, even if they don't give him nearly as much time. Anyone that listens to what Ron Paul has to say understands that he's not another member of the establishment."

No, I disagree. Being a Republican embeds him into the establishment. There's just no way around that. I don't think he saw this Occupy thing coming, but if he were still in independent, he could come in and get some attention. Aligning himself up with the GOP gives him the burden of winning over pro-life, anti-science, trickle-down douche bags.

Quote :

"If you can't be bothered to listen to what he has to say, then it really doesn't matter because you're going to vote for whoever you're told to vote for."

Do me a solid, and quit assuming I haven't listened to him. I have. And I think his ideas are so ideologically concrete that they don't account for the variables present in day-to-day life. This is just a fundamental difference you and I have. He thinks costs of healthcare would go down if there was zero government intervention. And maybe he's right, if we just let poor people die, nobody would have to pick up the check. Social Security would be less of a drain if we didn't have to pay for old people to live with dignity. His views, in my opinion, conflict with progressive issues of Human Rights.

Quote :

"That's not it at all. The government has set up incentives for corporate interests (mainly banks in this context) to act irrationally "greedy". That is, they gave them incentive to take high risks since they personally guaranteed that the risk was covered. Moral hazards and whatnot."

This isn't true. G'damnnit, man. Look up the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and realize that government deregulation actually reversed previous government intervention. If we had kept Glass Steagal in tact, we wouldn't have seen Banks merging with Securities and Investments to become monsters like the merging of Citibank and Travelers to form CitiGroup, which is a huge entity that directly profited from the economic collapse.

The government didn't impose incentives, the government removed regulations. That is government shrinking, not expanding. If the Government had never introduced Glass Steagal, we never would have gotten out of the great depression, and you and I would be having this conversation over a bonfire underneath the highway right now while fantasizing about heading out to Californee way

[Edited on October 17, 2011 at 10:10 PM. Reason : ]

10/17/2011 10:07:15 PM

Quote :

"No, I disagree. Being a Republican embeds him into the establishment. There's just no way around that. I don't think he saw this Occupy thing coming, but if he were still in independent, he could come in and get some attention. Aligning himself up with the GOP gives him the burden of winning over pro-life, anti-science, trickle-down douche bags."

I'll forgive you because it doesn't seem like you are really that familiar with how American politics work, but...no. You don't win as an independent. The Occupy Wall Street crowd is far outnumbered by the under-educated, obese Fox watching crowd. You have to get a substantial percentage of one of the major parties, and you have to get a platform. I would estimate that many of the OWS protesters will not even end up voting.

Independents don't win. I wish that wasn't the case, but that's reality.

Quote :

"Do me a solid, and quit assuming I haven't listened to him. I have. And I think his ideas are so ideologically concrete that they don't account for the variables present in day-to-day life. This is just a fundamental difference you and I have. He thinks costs of healthcare would go down if there was zero government intervention. And maybe he's right, if we just let poor people die, nobody would have to pick up the check. Social Security would be less of a drain if we didn't have to pay for old people to live with dignity. His views, in my opinion, conflict with progressive issues of Human Rights."

I was not assuming that you haven't, I'm speaking about potential voters. But, based on what you've written in this paragraph, you actually don't understand his views. You didn't even read the article I posted. He has specifically said he would continue paying benefits out to SS recipients. On the topic of health care...I've rehashed it a thousand times, but we'll have to toss out the third party payer system if we want to see market forces bring down costs.

If you want to continue seeing prices explode, then keep pushing for government subsidization. And, please, for irony's sake, keep bitching about the evil insurance companies while you're doing it.

[Edited on October 17, 2011 at 10:14 PM. Reason : ]

10/17/2011 10:11:32 PM

I know independents don't win. But Ron Paul is too radical of a republican to really be a republican. And to align himself with a Republican severely limits his appeal to his own base.

He wasn't/isn't going to win either way, so he would better off running as an independent and altering the national discourse rather than trying to transform a stubborn Republican party that is unwilling to adapt to his message, which is what is going to happen. He would have been better off as an ideological martyr, in my opinion.

[Edited on October 17, 2011 at 10:15 PM. Reason : ]

10/17/2011 10:14:02 PM

Ron Paul is walking proof that there aren't enough differences between the Republican and Democrat party to even label them separately.

Both parties are full of warhawks and are fiscally liberal.

Ron Paul puts forth one of the best spending plans in the history of the world and people casually dismiss it as "radical".

He's cutting $1 trillion in a year. That's fucking incredible. Our government almost shut down this summer because they couldn't agree to $10 billion in cuts!

Have we ever had a single President cut spending by $100 million? I doubt it. That's 1/1000th of a trillion.

10/18/2011 10:02:33 PM

Don't worry, he's becoming more outspoken and annoying to the real Republicans. They probably won't invite him to the next debate.

The only reason they've kept him around this long is so Romney can demonstrate how gracefully he will handle the republican fringe lunatics.

Too bad he's not a well-spoken white male in his early 40's. Someone might actually listen to him.

[Edited on October 18, 2011 at 10:18 PM. Reason : .]

10/18/2011 10:12:01 PM

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-19/the-hidden-utility-of-ron-paul-s-blueprint-for-balancing-u-s-budget-view.html

10/19/2011 8:38:42 PM

He just went on record saying he wanted to get rid of the NOAA, DoE, and a few other agencies

10/20/2011 5:04:43 PM

Ron Paul explains why he voted against repeal of Glass-Steagall (October 21st, 2011): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIC8E9Q2pTs

10/22/2011 2:32:12 PM

I disagree with his cuts but at least hes genuine in his goal to make real cuts and fix the problems. no one else is.

10/22/2011 3:10:58 PM

calls for end of federal student loan program

10/24/2011 1:27:29 PM

ron paul 2016

10/24/2011 1:29:38 PM

^^Sounds great to anyone with basic knowledge of how the current student loan model works. Federal subsidies are driving up prices.

^No, Ron Paul 2012. Ron Paul will not be running in 2016 unless it's for a second term.

10/24/2011 1:37:39 PM

Quote :

" He's cutting $1 trillion in a year. That's fucking incredible."

Lol there's nothing incredible about picking a bunch of stuff to cut without considering the repercussions, then reporting the huge amount of money that would be saved in the first year of the country's collapse.

10/24/2011 1:41:59 PM

he thinks hes being clever-

he thinks obama is unbeatable-

i love this idea though- will certainly diminish the ranks of those seeking worthless educations.

**claps**

10/24/2011 1:43:59 PM

obama is unbeatable... unless he's against ron paul.


but society is brainwashed into hating ron paul, so I'm still saying that obama is going to win 2012.

ron paul can and will beat anyone.... except obama. Obama has come through on more major campaign promises than any president since hoover.

hence ron paul 2016

10/24/2011 1:51:40 PM

Paul isn't about to beat anyone. You're on drugs.

10/24/2011 2:14:17 PM

The thing I respect about Paul is that he is 100% committed to his principles. He is one of the only politicians I can think of off hand that you'd have a hard time accusing of "flip-flopping" I don't necessarily agree with his views (especially in regards to women's rights-abortion) but the man has integrity, which few politicians have anymore.

10/24/2011 3:41:24 PM

he believes that abortion is a states issue. in don't understand the problem.

10/25/2011 3:57:22 PM

http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2011/08/26/305485/ron-paul-abortion-is-the-most-important-issue-of-our-age/

10/25/2011 4:45:03 PM

10/26/2011 3:47:34 PM

^^from the link within your link

Quote :

"Unlike many pro-lifers who want to see the federal government outlaw abortion, Paul said the best way to fight against it politically would be at the state levels. “I see abortion as an act of violence so I see it as a state issue,” said Paul. “When we make it a national issue, we get what we’ve had.”"

I respect that he sticks to his guns and wants to defer legislation to the states regarding something he feels so strongly about....most other mainstream candidates (D or R) foam at the mouth with the thought of legislating something like this at the federal level

10/26/2011 3:59:05 PM

Quote :

"1. Ron Paul does not value equal rights for minorities. Ron Paul has sponsored legislation that would repeal affirmative action, keep the IRS from investigating private schools who may have used race as a factor in denying entrance, thus losing their tax exempt status, would limit the scope of Brown versus Board of Education, and would deny citizenship for those born in the US if their parents are not citizens. Here are links to these bills: H.R.3863, H.R.5909, H.J.RES.46, and H.J.RES.42. 2. Ron Paul would deny women control of their bodies and reproductive rights.Ron Paul makes it very clear that one of his aims is to repeal Roe v. Wade. He has also co sponsored 4 separate bills to “To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.” This, of course, goes against current medical and scientific information as well as our existing laws and precedents. Please see these links: H.R.2597 and H.R.392 3. Ron Paul would be disastrous for the working class. He supports abolishing the Federal minimum wage, has twice introduced legislation to repeal OSHA, or the Occupational Safety and Health Act and would deal devastating blows to Social Security including repealing the act that makes it mandatory for employees of nonprofits, to make “coverage completely optional for both present and future workers”, and would “freeze benefit levels”. He has also twice sponsored legislation seeking to repeal the Davis-Bacon Act and the Copeland Act which among other things provide that contractors for the federal government must provide the prevailing wage and prohibits corporate “kick backs.” Here are the related legislative links: H.R.2030, H.R.4604, H.R.736, and H.R.2720 4. Ron Paul’s tax plan is unfair to lower earners and would greatly benefit those with the highest incomes.He has repeatedly submitted amendments to the tax code that would get rid of the estate and gift taxes, tax all earners at 10%, disallow income tax credits to individuals who are not corporations, repeal the elderly tax credit, child care credit, earned income credit, and other common credits for working class citizens. Please see this link for more information: H.R.05484 Summary 5. Ron Paul’s policies would cause irreparable damage to our already strained environment. Among other travesties he supports off shore drilling, building more oil refineries, mining on federal lands, no taxes on the production of fuel, and would stop conservation efforts that could be a “Federal obstacle” to building and maintaining refineries. He has also sought to amend the Clean Air Act, repeal the Soil and Water Conservation Act of 1977, and to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to “restrict the jurisdiction of the United States over the discharge of dredged or fill material to discharges into waters”. To see for yourself the possible extent of the damage to the environment that would happen under a Paul administration please follow these links: H.R.2504, H.R.7079, H.R.7245, H.R.2415, H.R.393, H.R.4639, H.R.5293, and H.R.6936 6. A Ron Paul administration would continue to proliferate the negative image of the US among other nations. Ron Paul supports withdrawing the US from the UN, when that has not happened he has fought to at least have the US withdrawn from the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. He has introduced legislation to keep the US from giving any funds to the UN. He also submitted that the US funds should not be used in any UN peacekeeping mission or any UN program at all. He has sponsored a bill calling for us to “terminate all participation by the United States in the United Nations, and to remove all privileges, exemptions, and immunities of the United Nations.”Ron Paul twice supported stopping the destruction of intercontinental ballistic missile silos in the United States. He also would continue with Bush’s plan of ignoring international laws by maintaining an insistence that the International Criminal Court does not apply to the US, despite President Clinton’s signature on the original treaty. The International Criminal Court is used for, among other things, prosecution of war crimes. Please see the following links: H.R.3891, H.AMDT.191, H.AMDT.190, H.R.3769, H.R.1665, H.CON.RES.23, and H.R.1154 7. Ron Paul discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation and would not provide equal rights and protections to glbt citizens. This is an issue that Paul sort of dances around. He has been praised for stating that the federal government should not regulate who a person marries. This has been construed by some to mean that he is somewhat open to the idea of same sex marriage, he is not. Paul was an original co sponsor of the Marriage Protection Act in the House in 2004. Among other things this discriminatory piece of legislation placed a prohibition on the recognition of a same sex marriage across state borders. He said in 2004 that if he was in the Texas legislature he would not allow judges to come up with “new definitions” of marriage. Paul is a very religious conservative and though he is careful with his words his record shows that he is not a supporter of same sex marriage. In 1980 he introduced a particularly bigoted bill entitled “A bill to strengthen the American family and promote the virtues of family life.” or H.R.7955 A direct quote from the legislation “Prohibits the expenditure of Federal funds to any organization which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style.” shows that he is unequivocally opposed to lifestyles other than heterosexual. 8. Ron Paul has an unnatural obsession with guns. One of Paul’s loudest gripes is that the second amendment of the constitution is being eroded. In fact, he believes that September 11 would not have happened if that wasn’t true. He advocates for there to be no restrictions on personal ownership of semi-automatic weaponry or large capacity ammunition feeding devices, would repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act (because we all know our schools are just missing more guns), wants guns to be allowed in our National Parks, and repeal the Gun Control Act of 1968. Now, I’m pretty damn certain that when the Constitution was written our founding fathers never intended for people to be walking around the streets with AK47's and “large capacity ammunition feeding devices.” (That just sounds scary.) Throughout the years our Constitution has been amended and is indeed a living document needing changes to stay relevant in our society. Paul has no problem changing the Constitution when it fits his needs, such as no longer allowing those born in the US to be citizens if their parents are not. On the gun issue though he is no holds barred. I know he’s from Texas but really, common sense tells us that the amendments he is seeking to repeal have their place. In fact, the gun control act was put into place after the assassinations of John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr., and Robert Kennedy. Please view the following links: H.R.2424, H.R.1897, H.R.1096, H.R.407, H.R.1147, and H.R.3892. 9. Ron Paul would butcher our already sad educational system. The fact is that Ron Paul wants to privatize everything and that includes education. Where we run into problems is that it has been shown (think our current health care system) that this doesn’t work so well in practice. Ron Paul has introduced legislation that would keep the Federal Government “from planning, developing, implementing, or administering any national teacher test or method of certification and from withholding funds from States or local educational agencies that fail to adopt a specific method of teacher certification.” In a separate piece of legislation he seeks to “prohibit the payment of Federal Education assistance in States which require the licensing or certification of private schools or private school teachers.” So basically the federal government can’t regulate teaching credentials and if states opt to require them for private schools they get no aid. That sounds like a marvelous idea teachers with no certification teaching in private schools that are allowed to discriminate on the basis of race. He is certainly moving forward with these proposals!Remember his “bill to strengthen the American family and promote the virtues of family life.” or H.R.7955? Guess what? He basically advocates for segregation in schools once again. It “Forbids any court of the United States from requiring the attendance at a particular school of any student because of race, color, creed, or sex.” Without thinking about this statement it doesn’t sound bad at all. But remember, when desegregating schools that this is done by having children go to different schools, often after a court decision as in Brown Vs. Board of Education. If this were a bill that passed, schools would no longer be compelled to comply and the schools would go back to segregation based on their locations. Ron Paul is really starting to look like a pretty bigoted guy don’t you think? "

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/11/04/10-reasons-not-to-vote-for-paul/

11/4/2011 11:44:54 PM

Just stop talking about this guy. The election is already decided.

11/5/2011 12:07:49 AM