PDA

View Full Version : Why does the media pretend Ron Paul isn't running?


County Mike
02-29-2012, 03:04 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7M21JlBM78&feature=share

The Russian media broadcast this but the US Media didn't even mention it. I'm coming to the conclusion that Ron Paul is the best man running. He seems to be the ONLY candidate who is more interested in the rights and well-being of American citizens than just promoting his own political agenda and boosting profits for his friends and special interest groups.

If our soldiers support Ron Paul, that's a pretty good endorsement.

rearnakedchoke
02-29-2012, 03:43 PM
imo this selection process has been a disaster for the GOP as what i thought it had been ... unfortunately, there are many like you who think RP is the best, but it's doubtful that he gets picked .. there will be a big rift in the party regardless of who is picked and it won't get that person elected . ....

County Mike
02-29-2012, 03:46 PM
I know. That's my personal confliction. The GOP won't let him get picked so the TRUE Americans who know he's the best man for the job, will write him in. That will split the Republican vote and open the door for 4 more years of Obamanation.

flo
02-29-2012, 08:30 PM
I like many of Ron Paul's libertarian ideas but his foreign policy is naive at best and disasterous at worst; legalizing drugs would be a big mistake as well.

His age (77) is also a factor, he's just too old to be starting a 4 yr. term.

The GOP really shot itself in the foot "reorganizing" the primaries and caucuses after the McCain nomination. It might have been a good idea had there been democrats competing for a nomination as well but with an incumbent it's just pointless.

Romney will be the nominee and the sooner that happens for the GOP the better, in my opinion. All this divisiveness just makes an Obama reelection more likely.

I'd sure like to see his son, Rand, run in the future. He also seems like a strong constitutionalist and is personally and politically fiscally conservative but isn't as eccentric as his dad. I do agree with you though, Mike, that the press basically just ignores Ron Paul. I sure like his honesty and integrity.

County Mike
02-29-2012, 08:37 PM
I like his foreign policy. Get us out of everyone else's business and take care of things at home.

County Mike
02-29-2012, 08:46 PM
I'd like to see 8 years of Ron Paul followed by 8 years of Rand Paul. USA should be pretty well back on it's feet and on top of the world again by then.

rearnakedchoke
02-29-2012, 09:11 PM
I like his foreign policy. Get us out of everyone else's business and take care of things at home.

i could be wrong, but isn't the current foreign policy or an adaptation of it what got gwb re-elected a second term and also got other presidents elected? i understand the whole, let's mind our own business, but i think there is a lot to gain from doing what the US does ... sure it spends money, but it also makes money ... it just isn't being done out of the goodness of their hearts ...

County Mike
02-29-2012, 11:39 PM
I'm not talking about world trade. I'm talking about the trillions we spend having a US base in almost every other country. We don't need to be the world's policemen and most of the world hates us for it anyway.

I'm sure Ron Paul has some things we won't all agree on, but I can confidently say he's the best of the bunch we have running.

adamt
03-01-2012, 04:08 AM
ron paul's still running????:huh::unsure:



















:laugh:







i was gonna post: who's ron paul, but felt that was a little too snarky towards obamas news networks, plus i seen them making fun of him on snl one time, so that is how i developed my opinion of him :frantics::frantics::frantics:










j/k

PRShrek
03-01-2012, 02:42 PM
He’s been in public office since the Seventies, what can you point to and say ‘he started this!’ or ‘he ended that!’ or ‘he changed this forever!’ If he hasn’t really made a name for himself in thirty some odd years of constant employment as a professional mover and shaker, can you convince me that he will suddenly become dynamic once he has this office instead of that one?

Even if I agree that all of his ideas are good ones (I don’t), if he wants my vote for President he needs to prove he can make things happen, and he needs to get started about ten years ago.

Pastor Chris F
03-01-2012, 10:07 PM
He’s been in public office since the Seventies, what can you point to and say ‘he started this!’ or ‘he ended that!’ or ‘he changed this forever!’ If he hasn’t really made a name for himself in thirty some odd years of constant employment as a professional mover and shaker, can you convince me that he will suddenly become dynamic once he has this office instead of that one?

Even if I agree that all of his ideas are good ones (I don’t), if he wants my vote for President he needs to prove he can make things happen, and he needs to get started about ten years ago.

it takes a majority vote to change anything so this is ridiculous to say. He has always been a shaker and his voting record proves it. The problem is he is a libertarian and the GOP is to close to the center to change. The Democrats are in left field and there are not enough like minded people to allow him to make any change. If he was smart he'd run for Senate and start filibustering both GOP and DNC garbage. But he stays on the house because they control the budget. I would never vote Ron Paul because of his stance on drugs and not using the office to stop abortion on demand in every state.

flo
03-01-2012, 11:15 PM
He’s been in public office since the Seventies, what can you point to and say ‘he started this!’ or ‘he ended that!’ or ‘he changed this forever!’ If he hasn’t really made a name for himself in thirty some odd years of constant employment as a professional mover and shaker, can you convince me that he will suddenly become dynamic once he has this office instead of that one?

Even if I agree that all of his ideas are good ones (I don’t), if he wants my vote for President he needs to prove he can make things happen, and he needs to get started about ten years ago.

Right on the money.

PRShrek
03-02-2012, 02:24 PM
The ridiculous thing is for someone to hold himself forth as a leader yet plead impotence in the absence of a majority. Lincoln didn’t sit on his hands and wait for a majority. Teddy didn’t furrow fake eyebrows at the lack of consensus. Reagan didn’t fret and fuss when the Democrat majority for eight years called for his head. Leaders are leaders BECAUSE no one agrees with them; they change the world because they have the ability to share their courage and conviction with others.

adamt
03-02-2012, 03:01 PM
The ridiculous thing is for someone to hold himself forth as a leader yet plead impotence in the absence of a majority. Lincoln didn’t sit on his hands and wait for a majority. Teddy didn’t furrow fake eyebrows at the lack of consensus. Reagan didn’t fret and fuss when the Democrat majority for eight years called for his head. Leaders are leaders BECAUSE no one agrees with them; they change the world because they have the ability to share their courage and conviction with others.

um....:unsure-1: didn't all those people you used as examples win by majority vote????



best be careful your line of logic, you don't have a theological basis for it

i'm not voting ron paul, but i must still respect him

there are alot more similiarities between noah and ron paul, than the people you pointed out....

just saying...

PRShrek
03-02-2012, 03:42 PM
um.... didn't all those people you used as examples win by majority vote????

Yes, yes, they were elected: Then they accomplished things that were not popular until they made them so.

best be careful your line of logic, you don't have a theological basis for it

And how would you have any idea what I have a theological basis for?

there are alot more similiarities between noah and ron paul, than the people you pointed out....

Wait, you’re implying that Ron ‘Drugs and Hookers for Everyone’ Paul is a Prophet of God? I can NOT WAIT to hear the theological basis for that zinger!

adamt
03-02-2012, 10:33 PM
Yes, yes, they were elected: Then they accomplished things that were not popular until they made them so.



And how would you have any idea what I have a theological basis for?



Wait, you’re implying that Ron ‘Drugs and Hookers for Everyone’ Paul is a Prophet of God? I can NOT WAIT to hear the theological basis for that zinger!

i don't care about ron paul enough to argue with someone about him, especially someone that can do nothing but twist words and make incoherent points.

case and point, i never called him a prophet.... if you can't even get that right, then there is certainly no hope to have anything resembling an intelligent argument with you, and seeing as how i really don't care about ron paul all that much, i am not going to go out of my way to argue with someone about him....

you must love obama then.... he has no record, was in office like two months before he was president and has changed everything since he is in office....

CAVEMAN1
03-12-2012, 04:15 PM
Within both parties, there is the "establishment" candidate. Dems and GOP have a good thing going and they believe Ron Paul would muck up the waters. Therefore, he's put on the back burner intentionally. Our political system is broken and needs a major overhaul, starting with term limits. No more "life time" politicians.

flo
03-12-2012, 10:04 PM
Term limits would be great. Unfortunately, they almost NEVER vote for them. Our forefathers never dreamed that our representatives would make it a lifelong career.

adamt
03-12-2012, 11:28 PM
Term limits would be great. Unfortunately, they almost NEVER vote for them. Our forefathers never dreamed that our representatives would make it a lifelong career.

+1

i can't imagine how much better it would be if politicians didn't have a chance to amass a huge financial backing and just buy their way into office, and how much better it would be if they had to keep in touch in the real world with a real job

and do away with that ridiculous policy of salary for life