I expected the racist Oklahoma shooters to be Ron Paul fans. Oh well, it would have been a huge boost to his campaign.

And the reichstag is a bad example because it was just an excuse for the establishment to crack down on "revolutionary individuals". You should be AFRAID of a reichstag event.

Make no mistake, this is your last opportunity. Liking Ron Paul on Facebook automatically adds your name to a government watch list.

[Edited on April 15, 2012 at 12:19 PM. Reason : .]

4/15/2012 12:16:27 PM

Liberty or Death. I will not be willingly oppressed.

4/15/2012 12:22:36 PM

You should go and apply for a protest permit so that you can tell everyone this news.

4/15/2012 12:26:10 PM

You've been watching Occupy Wall street right? Peaceful protest gets you nowhere.

Peaceful protests by people on strike work because the workers are costing the company money.

Governmental peaceful protests won't work unless everyone stops pay taxes.

The likelihood of that happening is about 2% right now.

[Edited on April 15, 2012 at 12:41 PM. Reason : .]

4/15/2012 12:40:03 PM

Government peaceful protests work as soon as the protestors go out and actually vote for congressmen and Presidents, something Paul protestors have failed miserably at. Oh wait, actually in reality Paul won 99.9% of all votes in all states, but the liberal MSM and the conservative GOP have teamed up to hide that secret info, trying to make us believe that young voters always have low turnout, but we know that can't be true because [photo of a rally on a college campus].

[Edited on April 16, 2012 at 4:52 PM. Reason : .]

4/16/2012 4:51:13 PM

Protests don't work. Until you convince the legions of old people watching Fox News 12 hours a day to vote differently, nothing will change. That's all assuming that the elections aren't rigged.

4/16/2012 5:02:17 PM

dp

[Edited on April 16, 2012 at 5:57 PM. Reason : .]

4/16/2012 5:56:36 PM

Popquiz Str8Foolish,

Iowa was the the first primary in America. Ron Paul tied with Romney and Santorum and they agreed to split the delegates up evenly.

http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries/state/ia

Weird for someone who is in last place?

Then of course, out of nowhere,
"DES MOINES, Iowa -- Offering no explanation, the Iowa Republican Party has declared Rick Santorum as winner of the Iowa caucuses, days after saying incomplete vote results precluded it from doing just that.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505103_162-57363390/iowa-gop-santorum-won-the-iowa-caucuses/"




Maine was the second primary,
Ron Paul was clearly the winner again
http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries/state/me


If you look closely, the results say only 95% reporting still to this day.



Can you explain how Ron Paul is in dead last after such a great start?
and can you explain where the last 5% of the vote is?

4/16/2012 5:57:42 PM

can you explain why he hasnt quit

4/16/2012 7:28:24 PM

Quote :

"can you explain why he hasnt quit"

Yes.

His audiences are always sold out. Not once or twice, but every single one he's held in every state.
He's had to move to larger arenas almost every time due to so much demand (I've posted the invitation and notices in this thread on earlier pages)

His support is growing despite what the media says. You can see the revolution growing right before your eyes. I can see it, so... Ron Paul can definitely see it.

Ron Paul has the strongest and loyalest supporters. They are vocal and attend his rallies, his rival's rallies, and even (yes) go out to vote for him. People that have enough care and energy to go to a speech, also have enough energy to go out to vote. Those votes are, unfortunately, tampered by those who count them.

Ron Paul isn't a quitter, either. He has been fighting for liberty for his whole political career which is roughly 30 years strong.




[Edited on April 16, 2012 at 7:39 PM. Reason : .]

4/16/2012 7:36:23 PM

Can you explain why he hasn't started running as a third party?

4/17/2012 7:47:05 AM

paul supporters basically want ol' ronnie installed as a dictator.

i mean, its the only way he would be able to accomplish basically anything hes said he wants to do.

its just hilarious to me because you imagine paul supporters as the rebel/liberty/anti-dictator types.

but in actuality its exactly what they want as long as its their man.

either that or theyre the dumb fuckers who made a C in HS civics/ELP and dont actually understand the powers the president has.

so which is it?

4/17/2012 7:53:52 AM

If you're an American on the side of the liberty and the constitution, you should have no problem with "installing a dictator" to force you to be free and force others to respect your liberty as written by the Constitution.


If you want to call ron paul a dictator, which is absurd and ignorant since Obama is the closest thing we've had to a dictator in United States history, go right ahead it's covered in your First Amendment rights.

Quote :

"i mean, its the only way he would be able to accomplish basically anything hes said he wants to do."

This shows me you haven't been paying attention in history or civic class at all. All I have to do is say "Executive Order" and pretty much bitchslap the fuck out of that claim.

Obama passed an executive order that instated martial law. If you don't know it, please educate yourself.

If fact, please figure out who's side you're on. Tyranny or Liberty. You can't possibly be on the side of liberty if you are anti-Ron Paul. Ron Paul and Liberty are synonymous.

[Edited on April 17, 2012 at 9:55 AM. Reason : .]

4/17/2012 9:55:33 AM

Quote :

"Obama passed an executive order that instated martial law. If you don't know it, please educate yourself."

Fuck! I was wondering why I saw a tank rolling down Glenwood.

Anyway, this was just an update to the bill Clinton updated from Eisenhower.

4/17/2012 10:22:25 AM

Quote :

"paul supporters basically want ol' ronnie installed as a dictator. i mean, its the only way he would be able to accomplish basically anything hes said he wants to do."

Actually, it's not. The President has full constitutional authority over the military and any Executive departments. The President cannot make laws or change laws, but he can stop the enforcement of laws and he can veto laws.

Please learn about how the U.S. government works. Doing so would put you well ahead of most Americans.

4/17/2012 10:47:00 AM

^ Would you mind explaining to Genie X Boy that Ron Paul's ideology precludes him from supporting regulatory regimes like USDA meat inspections based on his view of federalism and/or laissez fair? I'm starting to think he doesn't understand what he's obsessively trumpeting. At least you are aware and knowledgeable of the philosophy (no matter how much I might disagree with it).

Trying to bring this discussion over from Shit Chat.

4/19/2012 2:23:30 PM

Ron Paul Campaign Condemns Alaska GOP Illegal Exclusion of All non-Romney Delegates to State Convention

The Alaska Republican Party state convention is set to be held from April 26th-28th, and all previous communications to would-be delegates have stated that a delegate fee of $250 would be accepted up until the convention registration deadline, which is 2:00 p.m. Alaska Time on April 26th. However, on Monday the 16th state party chairman Randy Reudrich called a state committee meeting at which he stated that delegate fees would be accepted no later than 48 hours from the time of the meeting, which would be Wednesday, April 18th. However, on Tuesday the state party said that delegate fees had to be paid by 6:00 p.m. that evening. As individual delegates and campaigns scrambled to pay delegate fees, the state party erected bizarre and allegedly extra-legal obstacles in front of Paul, prolife, and other non-Romney delegates, and communications between self-identifying non-Romney delegates and state party personnel degraded.


http://www.marketwatch.com/story/ron-paul-campaign-condemns-alaska-gop-illegal-exclusion-of-all-non-romney-delegates-to-state-convention-2012-04-18

4/19/2012 2:31:14 PM

Quote :

"^ Would you mind explaining to Genie X Boy that Ron Paul's ideology precludes him from supporting regulatory regimes like USDA meat inspections based on his view of federalism and/or laissez fair? I'm starting to think he doesn't understand what he's obsessively trumpeting. At least you are aware and knowledgeable of the philosophy (no matter how much I might disagree with it). Trying to bring this discussion over from Shit Chat."

Here is the answer to your question in ron paul's own words.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Zz-Hk_f5xaA#t=59s

4/19/2012 2:34:05 PM

Quote :

"Would you mind explaining to Genie X Boy that Ron Paul's ideology precludes him from supporting regulatory regimes like USDA meat inspections based on his view of federalism and/or laissez fair? I'm starting to think he doesn't understand what he's obsessively trumpeting. At least you are aware and knowledgeable of the philosophy (no matter how much I might disagree with it)."

I couldn't find anything about Ron Paul on the USDA specifically, but he has generally acknowledged that the federal government has constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce.

With that said, the USDA is not a consumer-friendly organization. They've fast tracked Monsanto initiatives in more than one case. They subsidize shit like corn and pay people not to grow crops. They give people money to buy bullshit, processed food that makes them obese. The USDA is a burden to farmers and it's not making Americans healthier or more safe.

Now, if you assume that all regulation is good regulation, the USDA has to be great, and it has to be making us safer. If you accept that regulation can be good or can be bad depending on who writes it, then you can join me in reality where the USDA is a detrimental agency.

Overall, your point is basically the same point that has been made by thousands before you - if the federal government doesn't do it, no one will. This is an argument that has no basis in reality. The world is very dangerous. I understand that you want to regulate danger away, but you need to understand that regulatory capture presents an even greater danger to the average person.

[Edited on April 19, 2012 at 2:54 PM. Reason : ]

4/19/2012 2:49:38 PM

It is a detrimental agency and seemingly less and less effective

but the laws exists such that an organization by the people and for the people don't have the authority to oversee a company or set standards.

The best we could do is "test" the product that they serve to the public.

Oh wait, consumer reports and Dr Oz do that now on their own!

Everything went better than expected

4/19/2012 2:58:10 PM

Quote :

"Now, if you assume that all regulation is good regulation, the USDA has to be great, and it has to be making us safer. If you accept that regulation can be good or can be bad depending on who writes it, then you can join me in reality where the USDA is a detrimental agency."

False dichotomy much? Either you're blind or it's all-the-way bad past the point of repair. Are those my only options?

Quote :

"I understand that you want to regulate danger away, but you need to understand that regulatory capture presents an even greater danger to the average person."

Greater danger than what?

4/19/2012 3:00:02 PM

For those of you who claim that it is Ron Paul or bust this election, and that he has the only shot at defeating Obama, look here. I offer a substitute that has already gotten lots of support and attention this election season.

http://konyforpresident2012.tumblr.com/

4/19/2012 6:43:53 PM

Quote :

"False dichotomy much? Either you're blind or it's all-the-way bad past the point of repair. Are those my only options?"

It's not a false dichotomy. Either you assume that all regulation is good, or you accept that it can be good or bad. If you're live in the same country I'm in, then you see that the regulatory process is controlled by those that are supposed to be regulated.

Quote :

"Greater danger than what?"

Than the dangers we're being "protected" from.

4/19/2012 8:29:42 PM

I accept that it can be good or bad.
I suggest that workplace safety regulations are not worse than not having them.
I await your explanation of how the free market would make it so that only safe places to work would have employees even though history has shown otherwise.

4/19/2012 8:45:11 PM

People are going to work in unsafe conditions no matter how much government you have. People can choose to work in unsafe conditions. Miners, race car drivers, professional athletes and fighters do it today, and we have government. I'm sure we could come up with many more examples.

"Regulatory hawks" like to refer to factory conditions during the industrial revolution as proof that we need regulation now and forever. As you know, factory work is being automated out of existence, so I'm not sure if that should be the biggest concern for us now.

I'd argue that the consequences of regulatory capture are worse than the consequences of not having federal regulatory agencies. Takeover by big agriculture and pharma is doing major damage the the U.S. population, and the true consequences make take years to come to light.

4/19/2012 8:56:59 PM

USATODAY Censors Ron Paul from Political Video section.


http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/political-ad-tracker/most-recent#race=President

4/19/2012 10:41:21 PM

Ron Paul in Ithica

http://youtu.be/fmyMha987fE

Quote :

"Daman Singh 2 minutes ago I just got back from seeing Ron Paul at Cornell. It was so packed that people were having difficulty finding seats, contrary to what the pathetic, mainstream media would have you believe. Priceless experience seeing him speak live. Ron Paul 2012. "

[Edited on April 20, 2012 at 12:32 AM. Reason : .]

4/20/2012 12:28:14 AM

Quote :

"People are going to work in unsafe conditions no matter how much government you have. People can choose to work in unsafe conditions. Miners, race car drivers, professional athletes and fighters do it today, and we have government. I'm sure we could come up with many more examples. "Regulatory hawks" like to refer to factory conditions during the industrial revolution as proof that we need regulation now and forever. As you know, factory work is being automated out of existence, so I'm not sure if that should be the biggest concern for us now. I'd argue that the consequences of regulatory capture are worse than the consequences of not having federal regulatory agencies. Takeover by big agriculture and pharma is doing major damage the the U.S. population, and the true consequences make take years to come to light. "

Jesus fuck you know I'm not talking about people who willingly work for obviously dangerous positions. You know I'm talking about employers not putting their workers' safety first to the maximum degree the particular job allows.

Then the strawman comes out that only manufacturing jobs have any safety issues outside of cage-fighting. YEEE HAWWW!

4/20/2012 1:15:34 AM

Quote :

"So, what more does it take to get people to stand up? I'm in The Netherlands and things are rapidly changing here too. We too can feel the breath of evil. Slowly but surely we are waking up. I have this gut feeling that we have 'them' by the? balls. Be cool. Rhea303 6 minutes ago "

The "secret" movement is in America, Europe, Italy, Greece, Japan, China, Netherlands, Mexico, Iceland.

Those who are responsible for PIPA, SOPA, and now CISPA are trying to cut our internet communication next. These bills are not going to stop and the Americans will lose because it takes more energy to rally against a bill than to introduce a bill.

4/20/2012 1:32:11 AM

Romney audience: 4.19.2012

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwf1g2066qo


Ron Paul audience: 4.19.2012

http://youtu.be/EaWzV0GqCDs

4/20/2012 2:21:35 AM

^^ Did you just quote a Youtube comment?

4/20/2012 4:00:54 AM

Quote :

"Jesus fuck you know I'm not talking about people who willingly work for obviously dangerous positions. You know I'm talking about employers not putting their workers' safety first to the maximum degree the particular job allows. Then the strawman comes out that only manufacturing jobs have any safety issues outside of cage-fighting. YEEE HAWWW!"

I don't know that. People willingly work in shitty conditions. It happens all the time. It happens when many of the foreign goods you use every single day are manufactured, and ultimately, you don't give that much of a shit as long as you don't have to see it first hand.

If there is a competitive labor market - and there will be, if wages are allowed to rise and fall freely - workplace conditions do improve. They might not be perfect. There might still be risks and corners cut. The dangerous jobs will carry with them more of a premium. Workers will actually accept a lower wage if it means they can work in conditions that are more agreeable.

4/20/2012 10:26:09 AM

nevermind, it's pointless

[Edited on April 20, 2012 at 11:02 AM. Reason : z]

4/20/2012 10:58:40 AM

Just say what you're thinking. People are totally irrational, they won't take less money for better conditions, and they won't find better workplaces because there's going to be only one factory in town in a "free market". And, yes, everyone's going to be working in factories because "free market" means going directly back to the 1800s via time travel.

4/20/2012 11:13:59 AM

hahaha this thread is as retarded as pauls hopes of being president

can we please close this down since its romney, kthx

4/20/2012 11:33:34 AM

So... willy

When do you plan on watching your first ron paul video?
We can tell you haven't watched or researched a single thing on Ron Paul other than what you see other people say negatively about him.






You can start with this one
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifJG_oFFDK0

4/20/2012 11:50:14 AM

i used to like ron paul the man until i figured out the vast majority of his followers were a bunch of ignorant fuckers that i was embarrassed to associate with.

ive honestly probably read and watched far more material on him than you, but for different reasons.

as of late, this is my favorite:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abXy-1brUss

and just to be clear, youre about as typical as it gets with these people (not a positive thing, no).

4/20/2012 11:53:41 AM

"I liked the band before they became famous"




Jesus Christ.

4/20/2012 12:01:31 PM

and youre the ron paul equivalent of some pre-teen at a nsync concert who only knows the chorus to two songs.

4/20/2012 12:12:14 PM

You have no credibility after your last comment. You lost it.

4/20/2012 12:15:53 PM

k

4/20/2012 12:18:30 PM

Quote :

"i used to like ron paul the man until i figured out the vast majority of his followers were a bunch of ignorant fuckers that i was embarrassed to associate with. ive honestly probably read and watched far more material on him than you, but for different reasons."

So you had some run-ins with a small cross-section of his supporters, and decided to withdraw your support based on that.

I've met a lot of Ron Paul supporters. Some of them are stereotypical, basement dwelling neckbeards. Many others are completely normal people. If you're basing your support for a candidate off of his supporters, rather than the candidate himself, I'm not sure what to tell you.

4/20/2012 12:19:27 PM

tell me geniusxboy is a basement-dwelling neckbeard.

[Edited on April 20, 2012 at 12:20 PM. Reason : e]

4/20/2012 12:20:22 PM

If you ever have an educated opinion to add to this discussion, let us know.

4/20/2012 12:35:02 PM

4/20/2012 1:16:55 PM

Quote :

"And, yes, everyone's going to be working in factories because "free market" means going directly back to the 1800s via time travel."

Of course not, we've "innovated" bad working conditions and isolated economies (like Appalachia, where I'm from) out of existence.

Honestly, if the power of the federal government was about where it was in 1950 or maybe even 1936, I don't think we'd be that bad off. You, however, want it to be what it was only in the minds of a few people who were on the losing side of the Constitutional debates at the dawning of the USA.

Just admit that you don't have much empathy for people who aren't as "liberty-minded" as you and get on with your life.

[Edited on April 20, 2012 at 2:21 PM. Reason : v]

4/20/2012 2:16:20 PM

Republican Party presidential hopeful Ron Paul is still polling strong among many demographics and shows no sign of slowing down. At least if his bank records have anything to do with it. The candidate’s camp announced on Friday that so far in 2012 his campaign has managed to bring in almost $10.4 million in contributions from donors determined to keep the congressman in the GOP race.

Those funds won’t be funneled to pay off earlier spending, either. His officials say that in addition to the big bucks that came in for the first quarter, the Ron Paul campaign has zero debt at this point in the race. Compare that to Republican Party rival and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich who was reportedly in the hole to the tune of $4.5 million last week, according to an article published by Slate.

http://rt.com/usa/news/ron-paul-money-race-590/

4/20/2012 5:30:41 PM

Paul speaking live http://www.fbnlivestream.com/

4/20/2012 7:07:09 PM

Romney has spent $10 million wiping his ass so far in 2012. What's your point?

4/20/2012 11:29:46 PM

Scholars suggest that Abraham Lincoln probably had an annoying, high-pitched, nasally, country bumpkin voice too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Dlggkx6mks

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/Ask-an-Expert-What-Did-Abraham-Lincolns-Voice-Sound-Like.html

[Edited on April 20, 2012 at 11:32 PM. Reason : .]

4/20/2012 11:32:04 PM