Ron Paul Revolution

[7xstall]

Just take your ball and go home then, you are a spoiled brat. Idealism is for idealists but is not pragmatic when choosing the lessor of the two evils, It is the way it is and untill it changes, only an idiot would not vote because he stood on principle even though the principle was nowhere in sight. Even if you do not vote, it changes nothing. Change may be brought about by choosing the best candidate presented and petitioning him-her for your grievances, but by pouting like a little schoolgirl and not voting, you are contributing absolutely nothing. It is a two party system, which means only one can win. If you are going to vote repuke, then I say, please don't vote unless your man Paul is the candidate, thank you.



ladies and gentlemen, this is an important social policy announcement!

principals should be discarded when times are tough. there is no need for anyone to listen to your conscience, we are your new conscience and we are much smarter than you so just do what we say. do not waste time standing up for what you believe in, there is no hope and you are too petty to make a difference anyway. we will systematically ostracize and marginalize anyone who attempts to make a difference that has not been approved by our Social Difference Czar, medicineman.

we are the government, we are here to help.

Love,
Hillary Clinton



we now return to your regularly scheduled political banter at rollitup.org






.

 

[medicineman]

Just take your ball and go home then, you are a spoiled brat. Idealism is for idealists but is not pragmatic when choosing the lessor of the two evils, It is the way it is and untill it changes, only an idiot would not vote because he stood on principle even though the principle was nowhere in sight. Even if you do not vote, it changes nothing. Change may be brought about by choosing the best candidate presented and petitioning him-her for your grievances, but by pouting like a little schoolgirl and not voting, you are contributing absolutely nothing. It is a two party system, which means only one can win. If you are going to vote repuke, then I say, please don't vote unless your man Paul is the candidate, thank you.



ladies and gentlemen, this is an important social policy announcement!

principals should be discarded when times are tough. there is no need for anyone to listen to your conscience, we are your new conscience and we are much smarter than you so just do what we say. do not waste time standing up for what you believe in, there is no hope and you are too petty to make a difference anyway. we will systematically ostracize and marginalize anyone who attempts to make a difference that has not been approved by our Social Difference Czar, medicineman.

we are the government, we are here to help.

Love,
Hillary Clinton



we now return to your regularly scheduled political banter at rollitup.org






.

You are a funny guy. I could care less if you vote or not, in fact, I'd prefer you didn't. So be the spoiled brat and stay home. I'll be there trying to make a difference.

 

[7xstall]

i'm sick of being told that i have to eat brown shit or eat browner shit, you can eat it all tough guy.



Ron Paul 2008 or bust!






.

 

[ViRedd]

^^^^ Now THAT'S some good shit! ^^^^

LMAO!

​

 

[natmoon]

Im english and our political system is completely different here,i have heard on various sites that Ron Paul doesn't stand a chance at becoming president but is it possible that he can win some kind of state victory or hold more sway in your political system if he gets enough votes or if he loses is that just the end for him?

P.S. I hope he does win i am just wondering how it works.

 

[clekstro]

As far as I know, med, the person with the most votes wins. I know that this system likes to promote the myth among intellecutal voters like yourself that one must be strategic, even Machiavellian, when voting. This simply is not the case. It is not infantile to vote for whom you want to win. It is the only option. Is not the ultimate outcome of your lesser of two evils the infinite approaching toward evil? I know, med, that is the intelligentia's opinion. I have met many liberals in my day who fretted over my Nader vote: does anyone give a shit now that Bush ''won''? No...
If you're willing to vote the whole time in evil's general direction, why not vote the Anti-Christ in now? What could you possibly say to object to it? That it came too early??? What absurd rubbish...

Grow some...

 

[medicineman]

You guys just don't get it. Here's your choice- A or B or stay home. If everyone stayed home except one asshole, then that asshole would dictate who is in charge. My contention is, vote for whom you like in the primary, that makes sense, but when the general election comes down, if your guy didn't make it, then make a choice of A or B and vote for the best of the two as you see it, otherwise you are letting others make your choice for you, like I said, a spoiled brat. It's my way or the highway, juvenile.

 

[clekstro]

You dodged my question and just repeated the old talking point, med. The point is that A and B have yet to be decided, and the media and party heads are dictating what A or B candidate is acceptable. This is corruption of democracy in its essential character; deviants of the corrupt yet acceptable (within their own power construct) are excluded, not from the debate, but from their contexted portrayal. They scoff logic that A and B, for corrupt political propaganda purposes will not truly address, to the realms of the extreme, the wacky-dresser punk clown outfits, the thinking incapable. You say vote B. And yet B will change nothing. Why is it a waste of a vote to vote for a candidate who "cannot win" if the logical underpinning of your preference of B over A relies on an ideological difference that would be translated into policy, and not a waste when this liberal party hack changes ultimately nothing on the most important issue: Iraq? Voting B is a bad pick if you are ultimately wanting change, Med.
You should vote for Ron Paul in the primaries. Besides, Hillary's going to win anyways so there's no point in voting.
And if he doesn't win the nomination, you can always vote for Hillary in the general election.

 

[medicineman]

You dodged my question and just repeated the old talking point, med. The point is that A and B have yet to be decided, and the media and party heads are dictating what A or B candidate is acceptable. This is corruption of democracy in its essential character; deviants of the corrupt yet acceptable (within their own power construct) are excluded, not from the debate, but from their contexted portrayal. They scoff logic that A and B, for corrupt political propaganda purposes will not truly address, to the realms of the extreme, the wacky-dresser punk clown outfits, the thinking incapable. You say vote B. And yet B will change nothing. Why is it a waste of a vote to vote for a candidate who "cannot win" if the logical underpinning of your preference of B over A relies on an ideological difference that would be translated into policy, and not a waste when this liberal party hack changes ultimately nothing on the most important issue: Iraq? Voting B is a bad pick if you are ultimately wanting change, Med.
You should vote for Ron Paul in the primaries. Besides, Hillary's going to win anyways so there's no point in voting.
And if he doesn't win the nomination, you can always vote for Hillary in the general election.

There you go, mis quoting me, I said "vote your choice in the primaries", but if your candidate does not get the nomination then voting for the best of A or B would be better than not voting. Does that not make sense. And untill someone can institute a better way, those are our choices.

 

[7xstall]

Ron Paul Responds to Union Leader Editorial (10/8/07)
Any response to this paper's Friday editorial on my foreign policy position must rest on two fundamental assertions: first, that the Founding Fathers were not isolationists; and second, that their political philosophy -- the wisdom of the Constitution, the Declaration, and our Revolution itself -- is not just a primitive cultural relic.

If I understand the editors' concerns, I have not been accused of deviating from the Founders' logic; if anything I have been accused of adhering to it too strictly. The question, therefore, before readers -- and soon voters -- is the same question I have asked for almost 20 years in Congress: by what superior wisdom have we now declared Jefferson, Washington, and Madison to be "unrealistic and dangerous"? Why do we insist on throwing away their most considered warnings?

A non-interventionist foreign policy is not an isolationist foreign policy. It is quite the opposite. Under a Paul administration, the United States would trade freely with any nation that seeks to engage with us. American citizens would be encouraged to visit other countries and interact with other peoples rather than be told by their own government that certain countries are off limits to them.

American citizens would be allowed to spend their hard-earned money wherever they wish across the globe, not told that certain countries are under embargo and thus off limits. An American trade policy would encourage private American businesses to seek partners overseas and engage them in trade. The hostility toward American citizens overseas in the wake of our current foreign policy has actually made it difficult if not dangerous for Americans to travel abroad. Is this not an isolationist consequence from a policy of aggressive foreign interventionism?

It is not we non-interventionists who are isolationsists. The real isolationists are those who impose sanctions and embargoes on countries and peoples across the globe because they disagree with the internal and foreign policies of their leaders. The real isolationists are those who choose to use force overseas to promote democracy, rather than seek change through diplomacy, engagement, and by setting a positive example.

I do not believe that ideas have an expiration date, or that their value can be gauged by their novelty. The test for new and old is that of wisdom and experience, or as the editors wrote "historical reality," which argues passionately now against the course of anti-Constitutional interventionism.

A Paul administration would see Americans engaged overseas like never before, in business and cultural activities. But a Paul administration would never attempt to export democracy or other values at the barrel of a gun, as we have seen over and over again that this is a counterproductive approach that actually leads the United States to be resented and more isolated in the world.



Ron Paul 2008 — Hope for America





.

 

[kato88]

While Ron Paul has the right idea on some issues... he's still a Republican and wrong about almost everything else.

I would never vote Republican.

 

[medicineman]

While Ron Paul has the right idea on some issues... he's still a Republican and wrong about almost everything else.

I would never vote Republican.

Here-here, a voice of reason. I like some of pauls stuff, but as you say, he's still a damn republican. Probably try and stop my SS and VA health care, so the rich would pay less taxes.

 

[ViRedd]

Well, not to worry, Med. Your VA is gonna be fine. In addition, you and I will not outlive SS either. Our grandkids should be worried though. Personally, I think SS will be privatized within a generation or so. The thing is nothing more than a Ponzi scheme. All the money has been spent by being transfered to the general fund. There is no money in the SS trust account. The monies you are recieving now are taken from the paychecks of the current workers. The government arrests and imprisons those in the private sector who do the very same things.

Vi

 

[7xstall]

While Ron Paul has the right idea on some issues... he's still a Republican and wrong about almost everything else.

I would never vote Republican.

party loyalty! thank goodness that relic of imperialism is dying off as many demobots are coming out of the borg to change party affiliation and vote for the only pro-peace candidate. many of them seem to think that ending the violence is more important than all the free goody bags the demobots are promising.

i'd gladly vote for any pro-life (which automatically entails being pro-peace), limited government democrat. screw a name, i'm about the ideas.






.

 

[potpimp]

We have a chance to make a difference here folks; we damn well did it in the 60's and 70's and we can do it again. Not only that - we MUST or Amerika is headed straight down the toilet. If we elect the same establishment numbnuts again (either franchise) we will be a third world country. Ron Paul will get us back to our Constitutional government - More Freedom and Less Federal Govt. He will also end the "war on drugs". Here is a link to his NORML interview: YouTube - Ron Paul NORML Interview

 

[medicineman]

We have a chance to make a difference here folks; we damn well did it in the 60's and 70's and we can do it again. Not only that - we MUST or Amerika is headed straight down the toilet. If we elect the same establishment numbnuts again (either franchise) we will be a third world country. Ron Paul will get us back to our Constitutional government - More Freedom and Less Federal Govt. He will also end the "war on drugs". Here is a link to his NORML interview: YouTube - Ron Paul NORML Interview

Ron Paul looks good on the internet, but most numbnut voters don't bother with politics on the internet, it's either porn or shopping.

 

[7xstall]

Ron Paul looks good on the internet, but most numbnut voters don't bother with politics on the internet, it's either porn or shopping.

yeah, and the mainstream media is doing a great job of distorting his positions. i went to visit my parents the other day and brought a R. Paul bumper sticker. my mom said "he's not pro-life", i said, WHAT? granted, she's not a politically inclined person, but she said that's the impression she got from the news...






.

 

[potpimp]

I read something interesting the other day; I Googled famous sayings by Thomas Jefferson and found that he had an incredible distain and distrust for the newspapers. We're not going to find anyone that's perfect but we can make a difference by electing someone that's not totally sold their soul to the shadow government. I think less federal govt is a good thing.

 

[7xstall]

any democrat who has ever spoken one word about ending the war will either vote for Ron Paul or be a liar.

Ron Paul is the only candidate who will end the war.






.

 

[medicineman]

any democrat who has ever spoken one word about ending the war will either vote for Ron Paul or be a liar.

Ron Paul is the only candidate who will end the war.






.

Not true, Dennis kucinich, Mike gravel and Bill richardson all have a war ending agenda, Hillary has been bought and so has Obama. Dodd and Biden have a plan to bring some troops home, like about 60-80 thousand. Bill Richardson says he will have every troop home within a year of entering the office, Kucinich and Gravel say load up the busses and start the evac. asap, In fact Gravel is so pissed at the current congress he is loath to share the stage with them. He yells at them everytime he gets to speak to stop the funding, everyone just thinks he's a loon, but he is the only guy that speaks the truth about how to end the occupation immediately, cut off the funds. the first GI that died because of lack of funds would be squarely on GW Bush's head.