How long before Ron Paul posts are dropped?

you don't know much about ron paul's past, do you?

 

I absolutely love it when people are so blind to the truth. When their devotion to the meaningless notion of true-conservatism is so far past blind faith that they lose any respect they had for the constitution or the people of this country. These people, drones rather, will say anything to defend their idea of true-conservatism despite facts because without it they are nothing and stand for nothing. They cannot stand the mere thought of a media or government that claims to stand for the people of the United States of America that would lie and deceive them. They have such an arrogant mindset as to think that the entire world would be in shambles with foreign interference from our government. They think that no country or person could hate us for any reason due to our perfection and any that decide they do hate us must be labeled as evil and haters of freedom because that is they only explanation.

Ya, I love these people because they are just like the media. They ignore the facts all the way up until they are slapping them in the face. These are the kind of people that make Ron Paul's job so much easier.

Oh and merry Christmas!

 

you're projecting, ron paul's lies are blowing back to get him

 

If by blowing back you mean helping him surge in the polls, I agree.

 

I hate to break the bad news to you but if you don't nominate Ron Paul you're going to lose at least 10 million votes and maybe much more.
Nominate Ron Paul or enjoy your Civilian National Defense Force.
Those are your only options.

 

the bottom line is that ron paul won't be the president

 

And to answer the question in the thread title.

Probably in 2020 when his second term is up. Then you'll have to deal with Rand Paul posts.

Actually the bottom line is that the polls are against you and your opinion. Being first in the first caucus doesn't necessarily equate to no chance of becoming president. Actually it means quite the opposite.

 

what a joke, that's almost as funny as rand paul's bong-fueled kidnapping spree

i look forward to seeing your excuses for ron's failed campaign, in a few months



Ron Paul uses non-profit groups to evade campaign finance disclosure laws

By CAPITOL HILL BLUE Staff Reports - December 24, 2011

Two of Ron Paul‘s foundations are skirting the edge of, and perhaps crossing, the line between issue advocacy and political campaigning and may be breaking federal tax and campaign finance laws.

The non-profits, all part of millionaire Paul’s political empire, pays his campaign aides, organizes political volunteers and promotes his often unorthodox ideas, the Associated Press is reporting.

An AP “enterprise” story by Ryan J. Foley, published Saturday coincides with Capitol Hill Blue findings that raise serious questions about how Paul uses money donated to both his campaigns and his various causes.

By diverting funds into his foundations, Paul is able to avoid disclosure on how the funds are spent and evidence suggests he is illegally using non-profit foundations for political activity.

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/42586

 

For at least the rest of the election cycle. I personally can't get enough of it. The Paulbots got all the right solutions. They get hooked of that freedom thing Ron Paul keeps preaching. Got to emit is is addicting!

Ron Paul or Bust !!

 

Ron Paul, the NEW Messiah.

*sigh*

 

Thing is, no one HAS to vote for him, but people are free to discuss RP pros and cons all day long.
Lets look at what is going on here.
Republicans seem to think that they not only know, but obey by, the Constitution, and see themselves as Conservatives, when the exact opposite is true. Why else would they cheer big government Republicans, who have nothing to offer but yesterday's unfulfilled promises?
Its what people do every day, make themselves feel better by belittling others. Its the same old 'pointing the finger' game. Dems do it to elevate Obama, Reps do it to make their candidate look better than he/she really is.
So, by regurgitating half truths about Ron Paul, other Rep candidates may look a bit better at first glance, while, at closer look, they are not better than the usual, interchangeable, Dem-Rep line up.
I so wish that those who cheer for the 'other than RP' candidates would give some thought to what our Constitution is all about.

 

you're being duped

ron paul said that the constitution says only gold and silver can be legal tender

but, the truth is that the constitution doesn't say that

 

Going back to the original thread topic..

AFTER the next election.

Paul will retire gracefully To Maui living off his multiple government retirement plans he fought so hard against.
Just like Perry , already is doing.. double dipping...
I can see him On the libertarian judge show.. selling books..
He wont be advancing any conservative Republican ideals going forward.

The man is a fraud..
He used the Republican debates to advance his personal wealth..
Who says guys like him and Newt can't get ahead in America ?

 

Paul also said the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a violation of the constitutional. And that the Social Security Act is unconstitutional.

Minorities/seniors/women, should all take note.

I have from day one been in opposition of the Obama administration, but the more I learn of Paul, and the more I read from some of his supporters, the more I turn to the old adage... sometimes the devil you know, is better than the devil you don't know.

 

If you're looking for a Stalinist government that tells people who they have to hire, what they can and cannot do, seizes money from people to give to others, etc, than I don't see why you would think Obama a devil in the first place.

 

Ron Paul: Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.

This expansion of federal power was based on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The framers of the Constitution intended the interstate commerce clause to create a free trade zone among the states, not to give the federal government regulatory power over every business that has any connection with interstate commerce.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business’s workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge’s defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.

Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H.Res. 676.

 

Sometimes I think we've drifted so far from individual liberty and freedom that people are actually scared of it. "Better to support the Communist we know than the freedom advocate we know, too."

 

the propaganda you've posted is really boring, like ron paul

 

I'm really trying to avoid using the ignore feature but you really never contribute anything at all....

 

I did not write, nor did I imply I was "looking for a Stalinist government."

Regards

 

reality begs to differ

 

So why are you so in favor of the Civil Rights Act than?

 

Because he equates being against the Civil Rights Act to being against civil rights. An honest mistake.

 

This is the face I did while reading your post:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vbn9WvTNm8I"]Andrew WK Fox News Demon Face - YouTube[/ame]

Someone else will have to explain this person why he or she is wrong cuz I dont have the time or patience anymore.

 

What you're trying to tell us is to drop our support for a candidate that is steadily gaining traction in spite of the media and the GOP dragging him down. You do know that you could do the same, of course. After all, your guy has a ceiling of support that he can't get above, even with all the money, the GOP establishment and the MSM pushing his candidacy.

Why not suggest that Romney drop out and let RP be the clear standard bearer for the Republican party? You obviously know you can't win without his supporters, who, BTW, WON'T support your guy. And, if your team would quit pushing the lie that RP is unelectable, guess what?....he would become more electable!!

The fact is that we believe we can do it with you or without you. That's reality...face the fact. The GOP is running the very real risk of killing itself off with its stance towards RP. It is showing itself to be nothing more than the flip side of the Establishment coin and the People have had more than enough of that.

Your desperation is showing...you're scared...go ahead and admit it.