Ron Paul surging, can now win it all

While all eyes focus on Iowa there is some remarkable movement in New Hampshire. For the first time Ron Paul has moved into contention. Today’s Inside Advantage poll shows Mitt Romney hanging onto first place with 29.1% of the vote, Newt Gingrich at 23.9% and now Ron Paul at 20.6%. The rest trail badly, for example, Michelle Bachman dropping to 3.7% and Perry and .5%.

There is now a very real possibility that Ron Paul could win the nomination and the White House.

Everyone talks about what will happen if Paul beats Romney in Iowa, which is very likely. With the Romney brand severely damaged Gingrich would have a real shot at winning New Hampshire. But there is another scenario. Ron Paul is now within one point of Gingrich in Iowa and Paul has been moving up, Gingrich down. What if Ron Paul wins in Iowa? What if he beats both Romney and Gingrich? both men will be hurt in New Hampshire, Ron Paul will get a bump and could win there too.

Well, the pundits are saying, even if that happened, where does he go after that? What can he do in South Carolina?

Keep this in mind. As the renowned Trygve Olson points out, no recent candidate of either party has ever won the nomination without winning either the Iowa Caucus or the New Hampshire primary. This because of the power of sequential wins. And nobody has won both, in recent years, without getting the nomination. What happens is that the candidate who wins an early contest gets a bump. If he does it a second time the bump becomes insurmountable.

If Ron Paul wins the Iowa Caucus he will become a sensation. The people of South Carolina will rush to Google him and they will learn what the people of Iowa and New Hampshire are learning right now, that the way this economy is being run is corrupt and only one person saw it coming and exposed it and can be trusted to fix it.

Now you can bet that the people who are gaming the system will be fighting against this scenario for all they are worth. The attacks are coming and they will be merciless. But the public does not like being conned. And the public has lost the value of their homes and lost their retirement funds, they just may not be willing to give up their vote as well.

Paulistas need not worry about South Carolina. They need not worry about New Hampshire and Iowa. They should only have one concern. The next money bomb on December 16th, this Friday. That’s all that matters now. Ron Paul has great television ads, the best of the campaign, and those ads are working. They are very effective. They move numbers. But it will take money to get them air time. Everything for Ron Paul now depends on Friday. The nation’s elite will be watching.

And yes, Virginia, this is all happening. Ron Paul can win it all. It is something that we have discussed here for the last four years. It is now very possible.

Ron Paul Money Bomb

About these ads

74 Responses to Ron Paul surging, can now win it all

  1. Brett says:

    Ron Paul can do this! :D Taking the white house by storm in 2012.

  2. Frank DeDominicis says:

    President Ron Paul? Could be. Thanks for the encouraging observations, Doug.

  3. tex2 says:

    Or maybe he will make history by winning Iowa and New Hampshire, then become exposed on his dangerous foreign policies and crash and burn!

    • Another fellow Texan says:

      The dangerous policy of pre-emptive nationbuilding by force and war is an “Isolationist” policy. Ron Pauls foreign policy is very sound. As a Texan myself, I do hope you will understand that Ameica is broke and will not be able to keep the Empire running if we don’t get our financial affairs as a country in order. The current foreign policy is a complete dismal failure. Doing the same thing over and over, and somehow expecting a different result is the epitomy of insane foreign policy and inept so called leaders.

      • tex2 says:

        http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/156214.pdf

        $50 billion is not our problem, our problem is in the 10s of trillions.

        One trillion is 1,000 billion.

        You are “forgetting” to factor in the cost of NOT spending the $50 billion.

        Do you also not have any insurance on your car, house, etc?

      • Another fellow Texan says:

        Thanks for the PDF document texas2. I do have insurance and I will garner that you do also. Why don’t we just cut to the chase and tell me just how much more isolated America should become? Do you think since we are in the Syrian peninsula and now China has warships there also, that we should go to all out war with Syria,Iran,China and Russia? Have you been made “safer” because of our Forced democracy which is an oxymoronic term for any so called freedom or liberty. It is more inline with War is Peace, Slavery is Freedom,etc… I’ve had it with corruption in government and will be voting for the man who has not only by his spoken words of adhering to our U.S. constitution, but has also in deed of his actions stood by the U.S. Constitution. Remember that NO mere mortal fleshly man can save our country, but Only by The Lords mighty hand of His Will and through much prayer will this even be possible.

      • tex2 says:

        We’re not isolated. Ron Paul complains out our “entanglements” all the time: http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/news/local/a1/article_6ae68e9d-96c1-5874-a2c0-957af28a8651.html Why do you go “opposite” all the time? Is this really Ron? LOL

        I didn’t know Syria had a peninsula. Could you point it out to me on a map?

        I don’t think anybody (except you) has suggested “that we should go to all out war with Syria,Iran,China and Russia.”[sic]

        I have no idea what you mean by “Forced democracy.”

        You can vote for whoever you want, it’s a free country – even for stupid people.

        Believe me, I’ll be praying constantly if Ron Paul is elected.

        By the way, it didn’t go unnoticed that you COMPLETELY ignored how small our foreign aid is compared to the big bucks problems we face, and I suspect Ron Paul will soon be forced to face the facts as well. People only ignored him while he was background noise, he will NEVER survive the bright and hot light of revealing his utter lack of competence.

      • Albert Meyer says:

        People who use the terms “isolationist” don’t understand history.

        In 1914, Europe was at war, which was nothing new. Europe has been tormented by wars for centuries. There was no compelling reason for America to send troops to Europe. Woodrow Wilson’s non-isolationist sentiments got the better of him and he ultimately sent 500,000 Americans to their untimely deaths in far off countries to which they owed no allegiance, other than the ruling class’ obsession with their own importance on the world stage

        After the war, with nothing accomplished, Americans said, never again. When WWII broke out, Americans had no appetite for another WWI experience. The Internationalists started to brand these folks who wanted to defend the homeland, should Germany ever get this far, as “isolationists.”

        For those now crying blue murder, it should be added here that FDR received thousands of cable from diplomats in Europe, documenting German atrocities in the 1930s. FDR decided to keep this from the American public.

        Those who were against WWII had no idea of what was going in Germany. However, after the war, when the full horror was made public, the Internationalists used this as an opportunity to name and shame these people, calling them “isolationists, thereby implying that they were anti-Semitic, thereby ensuring that anybody opposing future wars runs the risk of being labeled an “isolationist”, which is clearly a fate worse than death. (FDR’s suppression of information is well documented, but for the skeptics I recommended a good book that is well worth reading: the biography of I F Stone, All Governments are Liars.”)

        For those Internationalist who take umbrage at Ron Paul’s foreign policy, I have a few questions:

        (1) Who is going to fund your next trillion dollar war?

        Including the wars, we spent $904 billion on the military in fiscal 2011, more than 6% of GDP. We borrowed 40 cents in the dollar. Canada relies on our protection and spent $22 billion. Canada provides universal health care. The same can be said of Australia. South Korea’s corporate tax rate is 15%, Taiwan’s 5%. All these countries spend 1% to 2% of GDP on their defense.

        We borrow heavily to police the world, to build nations and to protect our so-called allies. So, is $15 trillion in debt and rising not a problem? What if interest rates triple on us like they are now doing in Europe? Are you ready for a $750 billion a year interest bill? Answer me, who will lend you the money for your next war?

        (2) What if China and Russia step up to defend Iran? Ready for WWIII?

        (3) What if we spend five years in Iran and then leave like we did in Iraq? Declare “victory” and then three months later Russia and China install nukes in Iran. What have we achieved?

        (4) What if Pakistan (a Muslim nation) decides to give Iran a nuke; or China and Russia for that matter? Why bother developing it?

        Russia and China are staunch allies of Iran. For one thing, China is not going to lend Bachmann the money to bankroll the war.

        China might just do some mischief and dump $500 billion in US Treasuries on the market, even if they only collect thirty cents on the dollar. The psychological effect will be devastating.

        European countries are not going join in this time round. Bachmann said the war is to protect Israel. This lets the cat out the bag. There are large Muslim populations in these countries. Besides, Europe is already flat broke.

        Talk is cheap, money buys the whiskey.

      • JoeydaCat says:

        According to this article, the amount is 1.2 trillion (or 1200 billion). Slightly more than 50bil.

        http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2011/12/19/why-conservatives-must-adopt-ron-pauls-foreign-policy/

      • Albert Meyer says:

        I think we can end the debate with the following conclusion;

        Voters who want more war, more torture, more assassinations, more war-related deaths and wounded, more drone attacks that kill the innocent, more erosion of our civil liberties, more indefinite detention, more debt, more spending, more government, more taxes, more welfare, more graft, more greed and more of the same, Ron Paul is not their man.

        For those of us in whose hearts the fires of liberty burn brightly, we have found our liberator, Ron Paul, a man of unquestionable integrity, humble, self-effacing and wholly devoted to Constitutional government.

      • tex2 says:

        Did you see who wrote this? “Jack Hunter writes at the “Paulitical Ticker,” where he is the official Ron Paul 2012 campaign blogger.” LOL

        How stupid can you be? The article says, “our current foreign policy and related spending costs about $1.2 trillion annually, roughly our entire deficit.” There is NO description what goes into the “foreign policy” or “related spending costs” – which makes it pure Ron Paul crap, as usual.

      • tex2 says:

        Al,

        You may want to look up the words “Lusitania” and “Sussex” related to WWI, and I very much doubt your version of what led to WWII as well. Just look up “Pearl Harbor December 7, 1941.” LOL

        1. Who is going to fund recovering from weekly 9/11 events, and how many TRILLIONS will that cost?
        2. Russia and China haven’t gone to war over North Korea, Iraq, etc., what makes you think they will with Iran?
        3. Iraq can now defend themselves, for the most part, against the terrorists taking over again. Why would that be a bad thing for Iran?
        4. If Pakistan, Russia, or China gives Iran a nuke, they would be breaking the non-proliferation treaty, and I don’t believe they would do something this stupid, as Iran has too many ties to terrorism.

      • Albert Meyer says:

        Tex 2 wrote: “Al,

        You may want to look up the words “Lusitania” and “Sussex” related to WWI, and I very much doubt your version of what led to WWII as well. Just look up “Pearl Harbor December 7, 1941.” LOL”

        There was no reason be an “isolationist” after Pearl Harbor. In fact, Lindbergh, isolationist-in-chief, fought in the Pacific. My version of events is spot on. Read IF Stone’s biography: All Governments are Liars. I think Pat Buchanan has also written extensively on WWII, but the Stone biography is a good read.

        (By the way, thanks for answering my questions)

        Tex2 wrote: “1. Who is going to fund recovering from weekly 9/11 events, and how many TRILLIONS will that cost?”

        “Weekly 9/11?” if you believe that weekly 9/11 attacks on the US are possible, you are giving the goat herders and cave dwellers in the Middle East far too much credit. It is so preposterous that one has to ask whether you’ve stop seeing your psychiatrist? It is time to get back on schedule. Weekly visits to your psychiatrist is far more likely than weekly 9/11 attacks.

        Now answer my question, how many trillion dollars for your Iran war and who will lend you the money? One might add and at what interest rate?

        Tex2 wrote: “2. Russia and China haven’t gone to war over North Korea, Iraq, etc., what makes you think they will with Iran?”

        We have not attacked North Korea or even mentioned it. This is now 2011, not 1951. Russia and China are staunch allies of Iran, staunch in the truest sense of the word. Iraq was Iran’s enemy, hence, we were doing Iran’s dirty work for them. Russia and China had no objections and no reason to object. China’s national oil company (CNOOC) is now drilling for oil in Iraq. Iraq has now become an ally of Iran. Saddam is gone and all is well between the two countries. Cool, hey?

        If you watch Al Jazeera on the internet you see interviews of Russian and China diplomats who are not enamored with talks about tatting Iran. The media outlets in the US are giving you a wholly distorted and selective picture of reality.

        Tex2 wrote: “3. Iraq can now defend themselves, for the most part, against the terrorists taking over again. Why would that be a bad thing for Iran?” Not sure what you mean. This was my third question: (3) What if we spend five years in Iran and then leave like we did in Iraq? Declare “victory” and then three months later Russia and China install nukes in Iran. What have we achieved?

        Tex 2 wrote: “4. If Pakistan, Russia, or China gives Iran a nuke, they would be breaking the non-proliferation treaty, and I don’t believe they would do something this stupid, as Iran has too many ties to terrorism.”

        I would not put any trust in Pakistan’s commitment to the nonproliferation treaty. Iran also signed it. You don’t trust Iran, why do you Pakistan? Our drone attacks have turn the whole country against the US. They’ve closed the main artery for goods to move into Afghanistan, effectively aiding and abetting our enemy. If you want to know what’s going on in Pakistan and for that matter, the rest of the Arab/Muslim world, you should watch Al Jazeera on the internet.

        As to Iran’s support of terrorists, it is not without provocation (the CIA calls it “blow back”:

        The CIA went into Iran and helped to overthrow a legitimate democratically elected government (regime change, a bad habit in Washington) and install the Shah, who was about as brutal as Saddam. He was overthrown by popular uprising. Since then there has been bad blood between us and Iran, and Iran is not to blame. Not so?

        Then we helped Saddam in his war against Iran. More reason for bad blood.

        Then we shot down a civilian air plane over Iranian air space. George Bush gave the captain of the ship some medal of commendation. (You can’t make this stuff up. He should have been court-marshaled). More bad blood.

        Then we imposed sanctions on Iran. More bad blood

        So, now Iran is labeled a terrorists nation. Good grief. Who engineered the overthrow of a legitimate regime? The US. Sounds like an act of terrorism to me. Who shot down a civil plane? The US. Sounds like an act of terrorism to me, etc. Who is the real terrorist nation? Our acts against Iran, overtly and covertly, have caused them to retaliate. We’d do the same.

      • tex2 says:

        1. Lindbergh did NOT fight in the Pacific, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Lindbergh: “…flew many combat missions in the Pacific Theater of World War II as a civilian consultant, as President Franklin D. Roosevelt had refused to reinstate his Army Air Corps colonel’s commission that he had resigned in April 1941.” OUCH!!!

        2. The amount of money that is reasonable depends on the circumstances. For example, if Iran uses nukes on Israel, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia, and tries to block the Straight of Hormuz (which I’ve been through TWICE), a dollar figure is virtually meaningless.

        3. If you don’t think “goat herders and cave dwellers” attacked us on 9/11, then I have some people who lost thousands of loved ones in the Pentagon and New York I would like you to meet. That was one of the most idiotic statements I’ve ever read, but expected coming from a Ron Paul lover.

        4. We are technically still at WAR with North Korea. There have been recent hostilities, including deaths, between North and South Korea, get a CLUE!!!

        5. What kind of drugs cause you to believe all is well between Iraq and Iran? If ignorance is bliss, you must be ecstatic!!!

        6. Russian and Chinese diplomats are not responsible for protecting American citizens.

        You have such a separation from reality, it doesn’t make sense to continue to point out your multiple errors of fact.

      • Albert Meyer says:

        That reflects badly on FDR not Lindbergh.

        Tex2 writes; “2. The amount of money that is reasonable depends on the circumstances. For example, if Iran uses nukes on Israel, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia, and tries to block the Straight of Hormuz (which I’ve been through TWICE), a dollar figure is virtually meaningless.”

        Aren’t you supposed to prevent Iran from delivering its nukes (preposterous, but not the point) by starting another war? How many trillions of dollars and who will lend us the money and at what interest rate? What is there about “broke” you don’t understand? $15 trillion and about $50 trillion in unfunded mandates – mathematically impossible to repay, but don’t tell our children and grandchildren.

        Tex2 wrote; “3. If you don’t think “goat herders and cave dwellers” attacked us on 9/11, then I have some people who lost thousands of loved ones in the Pentagon and New York I would like you to meet. That was one of the most idiotic statements I’ve ever read, but expected coming from a Ron Paul lover.”

        Oh, I just listened to a debate on C-Span where they quoted a government source that Al Qaeda’s “standing army” consisted of less than 100 combatants (about fifty they said), but would you like to make a case for a much larger band of cave dwellers and goat herders? I fail to see any idiocy in the statement. When we went after Bin Laden we targeted the caves in the Afghanistan mountains. People who can’t face the truth always malign it – it’s a give away. Bringing the deaths of those died in 9/11 into the argument is just you seeking some kind of legitimacy. It exposes your inability to deal with facts.

        Tex2 wrote “4. We are technically still at WAR with North Korea. There have been recent hostilities, including deaths, between North and South Korea, get a CLUE!!!”

        Obviously, China does not recognize that we are “technically at war” with North Korea (you’d better call Beijing immediately, their ally is under attack by the US. Tex2 says so. It must be true), or they don’t care anymore, or, maybe, they are just abiding their time, waiting for us to spend ourselves into bankruptcy on these irrational wars.

        Tex2 wrote “5. What kind of drugs cause you to believe all is well between Iraq and Iran? If ignorance is bliss, you must be ecstatic!!!”

        Saddam, Iran’s arch enemy, is still alive? The religious faction that are now in power in Iraq, is the same one that is in power in Iran. Expect relations to continue to improve. It is not rocket science.

        Tex 2 wrote: 6. Russian and Chinese diplomats are not responsible for protecting American citizens.”

        Again I fail to follow your argument. Mine is that Russia and China are staunch allies of Iran. We will find out what that means once we attack Iran. It won’t be pretty.

        Tex2 wrote: “You have such a separation from reality, it doesn’t make sense to continue to point out your multiple errors of fact.”

        No errors my friend. Facts, nothing but the facts. You are the one who relies on value judgments to support your case. Sorry if I’m getting under your skin, but I used to be a neo-con myself. It was a jarring experience to discover that I’ve been lied to by my government.

        I see you conveniently duck my statement about Pakistan’s trustworthiness and our prior acts of aggression against Iran, which have understandably caused them to fight back. So now you call them a terrorist nation. Do unto others as you want them to do unto you. The CIA started the hostilities.

    • Sunny Reid says:

      Ron Paul’s foreign policies are only dangerous to weapons and armament contractors. It is a well understood fact proven by history and governments that a nations economy can prosper and grow in only one of two ways. One is supporting a domestic base. The other is supporting a militaristic government. But it cannot support both. Ron Paul does not advocate cutting necessary defense spending, only the wasteful military spending which is rapidly inflating our currency, and costing even more in lives and hardships world wide.. If people actually read his comments rather than listening to gossip and rhetoric, he will win all hands-down.

      • tex2 says:

        It is a well understood fact proven by history and governments that a nations economy can prosper and grow in only one of two ways. One is supporting a domestic base. The other is supporting a militaristic government. But it cannot support both. —-> Reagan did it.

  4. Ryan says:

    @ tex2, I don’t understand how defending our own boarders and pulling out troops out the internal squabbles of foreign nations could be considered dangerous. Google ‘blow back’ and see what our current administration is doing before calling defending our own borders dangerous.

  5. tex2 says:

    Ryan,

    You don’t understand because you’re stupid. This isn’t 1776, it is 2011, and when other governments won’t/can’t shut down terrorist training areas and otherwise keep these scumbags on the run, they tend to fly airplanes into very large buildings and have all kinds of other ideas to kill us as well. Does September 11, 2001 ring any bells in your empty chamber of a head?

    Google ‘blow up’ and see what Ron Paul’s foreign policy would do before calling defending our own borders adequate.

    • Another fellow Texan says:

      @texas2: Try reading the 911 report again. The former CIA special agent in charge of the Bin Laden unit agrees with presidential candidate Ron Paul concerning why we were attacked. I turned off propaganda news and I would suggest you do the same. It is amazing to have a train of thought that doesn’t include soundbytes telling me what media choices will be best for me and my beloved country.

      • tex2 says:

        I couldn’t find Michael Scheuer’s name in the report, but I am aware of his positions.

        Have you considered the FACT Scheuer may know how to hunt down Bin Laden (and he wasn’t successful at that), but he has little knowledge or experience with being in charge of geopolitical policies?

        Ron erroneously oversimplifies why we were attacked, and erroneously oversimplifies the solution even more.

    • Andrew says:

      tex2 maybe you can explain why the former CIA head of the Osama bin Laden anti-terror unit, Michael Scheuer agrees with Ron Paul’s foreign policy if it is so wrong? You think the crooks that are promoting and profiting from these wars, the guys that want you to believe the nonsense that you believe are more trustworthy and knowledgeable than Michael Scheuer? How can they hate us for our freedom and prosperity if we’re a bankrupt police state?

      • tex2 says:

        Maybe you should have read my answer immediately above:

        Have you considered the FACT Scheuer may know how to hunt down Bin Laden (and he wasn’t successful at that), but he has little knowledge or experience with being in charge of geopolitical policies?

        Ron erroneously oversimplifies why we were attacked, and erroneously oversimplifies the solution even more.

  6. Nicky Nelson says:

    President Ron Paul 2012!

    Ron Paul OR the war mongering globalist bankster profiteers – take your pick. Long live the Republic!

    I see you have educated yourself over the last several months Tex 2. You are such a boring little troll. lol

  7. JoeydaCat says:

    Mark Levin touting Gingrich on his radio show last night and Ann Coulter now supporting Romney.

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/ann-coulter-bashes-newt-tied-with-ron-paul-as-the-least-conservative-candidate/

    The media class is split down the middle as to which progressive conservative to support. Winner: Ron Paul!!

    • tex2 says:

      That’s quite a winning strategy. Don’t get supported by anybody and you’re a sure winner. It’s always worked for Ron Paul in past presidential elections, why not this time? LOL

      • Solly Gratia says:

        But tex2, it was America that trained bin Ladin and helped him set up the camps, as it was also Israel who encouraged Hamas as a counterweight to the PLO. It was America who put people like Saddam in place. It was America that encouraged Saddam to invade Iran, and pee’d them off enough that they started to hate your government. Some insurance policy! Unless your model is the Mafia, of course.

      • tex2 says:

        Just because things don’t work out 100% of the time doesn’t mean you stop doing them. Just ask Ron Paul, he’s run for president several times and keeps on trying. LOL

  8. Allison says:

    Ron Paul 2012! The ONLY candidate that represents “We the People” don’t let the media fool you into thinking he doesn’t gave support – because he does & in large numbers. Paul in the Whitehouse 2012! Do your research people!

  9. Allison says:

    *have support

  10. America could do with a Ron Paul in office.

  11. Meno Tellinu says:

    tex2, your entire argument is written and spun by your mentors (obviously Levin and Hannity)- I listen to them too, but there should be an advisory that people who cannot think for themselves should not listen to them. There is a difference between isolationism and non-interventionism. Our current policies are more isolationist than you can imagine because they basically tell the world that everyone has to be just like us, or suffer the consequences. Isolationism means to hide or avoid all contact with everyone that is not like us. All our policies do now is isolate us from everyone that does not want to comply with the UN’s global takeover.

    Before we became the world’s henchmen, we were safer because we could produce many things that many other countries wanted. Doing business was mutually beneficial, and because of that, there was incentive to resolve conflicts peacefully.

    Are we not isolated from the countries that we oppose? Isnt it an act of isolation when you impose sanctions on a country? Sanctions are EXACTLY isolationism. The only countries we are not isolated from under the current policy are the ones that do business with us. We are not isolated from China, Pakistan, Russia,and others that are more threatening than Iran. Don’t you find it strange that they call Ron Paul an isolationist, when his policy is the one that they actually employ to keep China, Russia and Pakistan (all nuclear threats) off our backs? Then when you look at the countries we impose sanctions on, or attack, which is the policy you are in favor of- do nothing but start wars. Is it really that hard to see the logic?

    Just because you hear the propaganda from the government propaganda machine, and the corporatists, and the neo-cons -you shouldnt simply take their word for it, because most of them have an agenda, or something at stake that they arent disclosing. Seriously, for Mark Levin to favor Gingrich or Romney over Paul (I know they arent his favorites either, but..) is just ridiculous. Hypocritical! Mark Levin touts the very principles that Ron Paul stands for and has fought alone for, consistently, and his ONLY beef is with foreign policy. Levin knows that a President alone cannot change such things by himself, and as a REAL constitutionalist, Ron Paul is probably the only candidate that wouldnt do anything, as Prez, that isnt sanctioned by the Constitution.

    Mark Levin brainwashes his listeners by constantly putting Ron Paul and ALL of his supporters down. It makes it hard to be a Levin fan as well as a Paul supporter. Levin is a brilliant man, but his distaste for Paul is personal- he tries to make it sound like it is a principled objection, which is contradictory to everything Levin claims to stand for. When Levin isn’t seen as the most conservative guy in the room, his ego hurts.

    So, Tex, from my experience, it is nearly impossible to get anyone to actually THINK about anything once their mind is set. We would probably agree that a TURD would be a better and less damaging President than Obama, so in that I guess we will find common ground. I agree with Mark on that gesture, whichever Republican gets the nod, will probably get my vote as opposition to Obama. However, electing Newt or Romney will probably prove to be unproductive and do nothing but divide this country even more.

    People need to understand that the Presidents main job is to represent us, not to rule us. We need BETTER than the lesser of evils, because Americans need a leader that will be straight with them and actually live by the principles he claims to stand for. The reason I hope Paul wins, is because being President gives one a huge platform to talk sense to people. I guarantee when Americans wise up and shed the propaganda they have been fed for generations- they will finally get the opportunity to hear things that actually make sense in the real world- instead of the political crap that makes everything seem more complicated than it really is. All we have been getting for decades is spin, politically correct versions of lies. THIS is why you (and many others) believe that Paul’s foreign policy is dangerous.

    When the People finally see what a TRUE representative of the People’s Rights is, they will start electing more like Ron Paul. I have no doubt in my mind about that. Get to know who he is from himself- stop assuming who he is from what everyone else says about him.

  12. Sunny Reid says:

    Ron Paul has been running for President off since 1978. . He has an excellent grasp of our country’s fundamental problems. He has never lied, or made empty promises. He is not a politician, but an excellent statesman. I do not believe more than five other congressmen can make that same claim, and perhaps not that many. He is by far the most honorable candidate in the race. He is the best candidate for President of this country. I will be participating in the money bomb tomorrow and donating what I can to the cause. Hope you all will do the same.
    Elect Ron Paul for President of our United States of America. You can trust him. He is on our side.

  13. Sunny Reid says:

    Ron Paul has been running for President off and on since 1978.

  14. Kenneth Adams says:

    Doug:

    The most agonizing connundrum of our foreign policy is this.
    Do we kick in the gates of hell and promote our notion of democracy
    at the point of a gun, dragging the Flintstones via forceps through the birth canal? Or, do we go, wise as serpents and meek as lambs, meeting their fury until it burns out? It took 300 years to take out Rome.

    You might wonder. If a drone is 1 billion bucks, and we have 32 million unemployed if you paid $50,000 to 20,000 good, solid, God fearing, loving Americans, and sent them to Iran just to serve and talk, would that do better than dropping the billion dollar drone on them?

    I cannot find the scripture where our Lord says to convert them at the point of a gun. On the other hand, He DID say one should own a sword because evil IS afoot. Zionism is evil. The Soviet Union was evil, Communist China is evil. The American Empire is the most benevolent empire in history, a quantam or two up from its nearest rival. However, i would contend that we are NOT stronger than ever but actually somewhat compromised. It is time to take another track.
    Ron Paul, this gentle, soft spoken country doctor, may be our last
    best chance at peace.

    Still have your “Sermon on the Mount” tape…a true masterpiece.
    Glad you got out.

    • tex2 says:

      Where did you see that a drone is worth $1 billion? As long as you send 20,000 Ron Paul supporters to Iran, I’m all for it. LOL

      Just don’t expect any of them to come back. Ever.

  15. JoeydaCat says:

    Local News reality check on Ron Paul’s foreign policy. Evidently if you place LOL at the end of your comment it makes you more credible.

    http://www.fox19.com/story/16327085/reality-check-are-ron-pauls-views-on-israel-misguided-and-extreme

    oh, I almost forgot: LOL

  16. Ricky bobby says:

    So, if Ron Paul wins the presidency, he will repeal the patriot act, close down foriegn bases, and stop foriegn aid. If he doesn’t win, nothing changes, the dollar crashes, we go broke, close down foriegn bases, stop foriegn aid, and every American is a terror suspect.

    Tex2 is like alot of Republicans out there, informed. Most, like him, love Paul’s domestic policies and scared to death of foriegn. They remember how we spread democracy around the world, and out spent the USSR into failer. But (IMHO) they forget the rest of the story.

    Nazi Germany invaids multiple countries in an attempt to spread their idea of a better world. They spead their resources thin, the Allies, including Russa, helped defeat Nazi Germany. The USSR invaids Afganistan, speads it’s resources thin, and the strain leads to it’s collapse. The USA invades Afganistan, spreads our resources thin, and…………

    Four years ago McCain lost because he thought that not only should we stay in Iraq, but start another war with Iran. How many troops would be there now? What could possibly be the best result in the end? How do we win? What do we win?

    The sooner we can get older Republicans “left” of armigedon, the faster they can become part of the solution. We will change the world and promote peace. No “chicken hawk” will win the White House in 2012.

    • tex2 says:

      Ron can’t repeal a law, that’s the job of Congress. Since Ron follows the Constitution, you should know he won’t and can’t do this.

      We didn’t invade Afghanistan in any way similar to your other examples. Please stop being like Ron Paul and oversimplifying the issues.

  17. tex2 says:

    I saw the debate last night, and I happen to agree with all the other candidates much more than Ron Paul when it comes to foreign policy. There’s a price that is paid for foreign aid, and there’s a much higher price for no foreign aid. I would rather pay the “insurance” than raise the probability of an attack.

  18. justsayin says:

    tex 2 do you have a life? You are so dog bent on stirring strife with Ron Paul supporters. You have attacked every comment on here that was for Ron Paul, but never offered to give us the high-light reel of your candidate. I never seen a football team win on defense alone. Maybe you could illuminate our primitive, ignorant support for Ron Paul by proselytizing for your candidate of choice. A man so gold with tongue should surely be able to tell us why his candidate is a far better choice.

    • tex2 says:

      Yes, I have a life, which partially consists of ensuring Ron Paul is exposed for the VERY dangerous man he is. ANY of the other Republican candidates would be better than Ron, as I stated above in my December 16, 2011 8:30 pm comment. I haven’t decided on who I’m going to support. If you don’t like that, stick it where the sun don’t shine! LOL

      • Albert Meyer says:

        Tex2, I think you should tell us your real name. Why are you hiding behind a pseudonym while calling others idiots. It is fine posting under a pseudonym, but when you resort to insults, you should publish your name, otherwise these insults tell us more about you than about us.

        It is idiotic to use words such as danger, peril, etc, but offer no substantive evidence of the danger and perils, other than the ridiculous theory that Iran, a country that exports crude oil to China and imports gasoline from China, could conceivably be a military threat to the US; or to Israel for that matter, but, other than for the Christian Zionists like Bachmann, Israel is well nigh irrelevant. Besides, Israel has shown in the past that is has no qualms when it comes to taking out nuclear reactors. In addition, Israel usually takes about six days to start and end a war.

        When George Bush took over the White House, we had debt of $6 trillion. He pushed the debt up to over $10 trillion and Obama added another $5 trillion, but there are no signs of any slowdown. Now that is what I call peril and danger. It is also immoral, for those who care about morals.

        What really endangers us is the promise made by the GOP candidates to start a war against Iran. In addition, drone attacks imperil us, because they are killing innocent people in the Middle East and Pakistan. Every death, makes it so much easier for Al Qaeda to recruit members. It goes without saying.

        Ron Paul is universally loved, but you would not know that because you are not following his campaign. He is universally loved, because he is man of peace. Read my post above. You want war, Ron Paul is not your man.

        Your wish to see Ron Paul withdraw his candidacy is laughable. If you go to his campaign website you will see that small contributions from thousands of donors are pouring into his campaign, minute-by-minute, documented by the names that flash across the screen. Every person who donates (about 60,000 over the recent weekend) now has a monetary stake in the campaign. That motivates them to go out and campaign for Ron Paul.

        His grassroots support is huge, and received special mention by Mitt Romney during the debates, something to the effect that “wherever I go, no matter how cold outside, you will see Ron Paul supporters waving their signs. It is exciting to see.” During a Congressional hearing, Hillary Clinton, while being questioned, interrupted her answer, and by pointing to Ron Paul, she told him that she just has to comment on the enthusiasm of his supporters. “You obviously struck a cord, Congressman Paul.”

        Tex2, you can vote for whomever you want. It does not bother us in the least. Speaking personally, it did not bother me in the least whether Obama or McCain won the White House. They are both in the pockets of the military-industrial complex. They both have no regard for our civil liberties. The same can be said of Dr. Paul’s opponents in the current race, with one possible exception, John Huntsman. At least he thinks, torture is unacceptable and a violation of international law.

        We know what you want in a candidate. I outlined it above – more of the same. Dr.Paul is not your man.

      • apples4me says:

        You want me to go inside your brain? LOL

      • tex2 says:

        Sure, go for it. This should be entertaining! LOL

  19. Albert Meyer says:

    I think we can end the debate with the following conclusion;

    Voters who want more war, more torture, more assassinations, more war-related deaths and wounded, more drone attacks that kill the innocent, more erosion of our civil liberties, more indefinite detention, more debt, more spending, more government, more taxes, more welfare, more graft, more greed and more of the same, Ron Paul is not their man.

    For those of us in whose hearts the fires of liberty burn brightly, we have found our liberator, Ron Paul, a man of unquestionable integrity, humble, self-effacing and wholly devoted to Constitutional government.

    (This post is dedicated to our friend, Tex2)

    • tex2 says:

      I think you could end the debate when Ron Paul withdraws his candidacy for president, with the following conclusion:

      Voters who want to be put in peril by someone who has never led, is almost universally shunned, and is in favor of putting the USA in grave danger, Ron Paul is their man.

      For those of us who have common sense and don’t get caught up in the false promises and faulty logic of Ron Paul, we can actually continue our Constitutional government, however flawed it may be, instead of allowing others to wipe us off the face of the earth.

      (This post is dedicated to Albert Meyer and other idiots considering voting for Ron Paul. LOL)

  20. wtfchuck says:

    Ron Paul for Peace, Liberty, limited Constitutional govt and sound currency!! The GOP had better get on board because it’s our way or the highway!

    • tex2 says:

      It’s time to put away the Ron Paul fruitcakes by telling them single digit support isn’t going to create a president, especially after more people find out about Ron’s naive and dangerous foreign policies.

      • wtfchuck says:

        Ron Paul’s foreign policy is one of the primary reasons that he will win in Iowa come in second in NH and gain momentum as his non interventionist message gets out. The American people are waking up to the fact that we are broke and we not the world’s police and they are tired of endless wars.

      • Albert Meyer says:

        hahahhaa funny… “dangerous foreign policy…” dangerous to whom? Israel? Why did Israel not help us fight our senseless wars in Kuwait, Iraq and Afghanistan?

        It’s very dangerous of Ron Paul to argue that we have to stop borrowing trillions of dollars from the Chinese to pay for our out-of-control foreign policy. I mean running up trillion dollar deficits is the safest way to gamble with the future of our children and grandchildren; let’s not bring the morality of mortgaging their future into the picture.

        Here’s Rick Steves, NPR’s travel reporter on a visit to Iran:

        http://fora.tv/2009/01/26/Rick_Steves_A_Perspective_on_Iran

        For those who need a better understanding of the Iranian culture, before they launch into their next christian jihad.

  21. tex2 says:

    Hahahaha, dangerous to the United States of America. How do you know Israel didn’t help us in Kuwait, Iraq, and Afghanistan? It’s easy to answer why they didn’t PUBLICLY help us, it would be a rallying cry for all the Muslim fruitcakes, but how do YOU know Israel didn’t help us covertly? Huh?

    When I take my foreign policy advice from a travel agent, I’ll also vote for someone who has NEVER led – and his name is Ron Paul! Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • Albert Meyer says:

      Sounds like you believe in Santa. How do I know Santa did not help with the delivery of Christmas gifts? It’s all done covertly! Trust me, folks, Elvis is alive and well living in Memphis. Tex2 might be able to confirm this.

      • tex2 says:

        It is well known governments assist each other covertly, and anybody except Ron Paulites actually understand WHY. Making jokes about Santa and Elvis just show how thoroughly stupid and dangerous you and Ron Paul would be for this country!

  22. wtfchuck says:

    tex2’s posts reek of desperation, The maniacal laughter at the end is a dead give away. Just like many of the smear attempts now in the MSM. It will be our way or the highway this time. Romney is no better than Obama. He will go down.

  23. Debbie says:

    Ron Paul is the most trustworthy Candidate for President.
    If you are a Religious person and you believe in this Country
    America then you have to vote Ron Paul. The rest of the Establishment is bought out . Rise up AMERICA Do Not Let
    Them Sell You OUT AGAIN

  24. Surfisher says:

    Vote YES :

    BAN *tex2* from this site IMMEDIATELY — Never allow IT to post here again! ALSO, DO NOT RESPOND TO ANY OF ITS TROLLING !

    Dear, Doug — this is your HOME page, and all of us posting here are your guests. Don’t know about your tolerance level, but mine ends when an unwelcome guest tries to set my home on fire, in order to chase out all the welcomed people I’ve invited!

    No normal exchange can be held here — since the #2 quickly fills in all REPLY slots….so no-one else can respond sequentially to what was stated before. This is its main goal (secondary is its spittings of hatred to all that’s good)!

    • tex2 says:

      Crucify him…..crucify him….. LOL

      The Passion of the Christ is a good movie, but I don’t know if I want to watch it THAT many times in a row, so let’s take a break from this repetitious “program” and allow other readers to comment on the below serious and real issues that result in baggage for Ron Paul. Tell me what you think, let’s have open and honest discourse, and since I’m a First Amendment kind of guy, even the “list” above is welcome to chime in:

      Why Ron Paul would NOT be a good president:
      1. He is old, mousey, whiny, grumpy, skinny, etc. Do not underestimate the importance of these factors, as a very large number of voters are not familiar with the issues, and vote for vanity. Sad but true. It does no good to have good ideas when you don’t have the presidential image, and Ron has neither.
      2. He has been in Congress for 2 decades and doesn’t have a single bill to his name. We elected someone president with zero accomplishments in 2008, why would we want to do that again? How can you expect him to be able to lead the country when he can’t lead a single bill to fruition after 20 years?
      3. He even voted against his own bill to audit the Federal Reserve, because he didn’t get every single detail he wanted. He is so stubbornly rigid he simply takes his toys and goes home if he doesn’t get every little detail he wants.
      4. Many of his domestic policies are admirable, but how does he expect to implement them when he will have to work with Congress to get many of them turned into a reality? Will he simply hold his breath until Congress lets him get his way, because he has zero track record of using any other tactic to be successful?
      5. Most of his foreign policies are dangerous. If we pull out of foreign countries, the vacuum WILL be filled by Russia, China, etc. Once you lose your toehold, it is VERY difficult to expand military operations if the need arises. Think about how hard it would have been for the U.S. to fight Hitler if England had fallen. For example, if China decides they don’t want to allow free flow of oil, we would have no recourse, as it takes years, if not decades, to develop independent energy sources. He is simply naive to the point of being a traitor to his own country. Also, we need forward positioned military presence to fight the global war on terror. It isn’t being fought only in Iraq and Afghanistan, there are operations literally around the world preventing future 9/11 type attacks that simply cannot be fought by guarding our own borders, 9/11 should have taught us that. We must therefore disrupt the terrorist cells wherever they are, so they cannot organize, plan, recruit, train, equip, and attack again. To not do this would be suicidal.
      For the above and other reasons, Ron gets the pot smoking and “freedom at any cost” crowd, and that’s all he will ever get…LOL

    • Surfisher says:

      Here is another good one!

      (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkTreAmnmZ0)

      send it!

      also:
      The #2 is a paid shill to troll and disrupt this forum with its spewing of hatred. So real Americans can’t converse here without IT hijacking all threads. That’s why this subhuman needs to be banned. One NEVER responds to IT — its existence is to be ignored.

  25. Surfisher says:

    Vote to ban the #2 that pollutes this forum with its trolling.

    So far the vote to BAN it — ‘tex2′ — is:

    1) Surfisher
    2) Sharon Kuhn
    3) annebeck58
    4) christopher Deligate of Missouri
    5) donjusko
    6) sharksauce24
    7) sophiah8
    8) rmcnnlly
    9) BanTex2Al
    10) Wendy Jones
    11) Evan Godolphin
    12) Remmic Lewis
    13) Shane Mayfield
    14) jeffrey bohl

    • tex2 says:

      Crucify him…..crucify him….. LOL

      The Passion of the Christ is a good movie, but I don’t know if I want to watch it THAT many times in a row, so let’s take a break from this repetitious “program” and allow other readers to comment on the below serious and real issues that result in baggage for Ron Paul. Tell me what you think, let’s have open and honest discourse, and since I’m a First Amendment kind of guy, even the “list” above is welcome to chime in:

      Why Ron Paul won’t get elected and would NOT be a good president:
      1. He is old, mousey, whiny, grumpy, skinny, etc. Do not underestimate the importance of these factors, as a very large number of voters are not familiar with the issues, and vote for vanity. Sad but true. It does no good to have good ideas when you don’t have the presidential image, and Ron has neither.
      2. He has been in Congress for 2 decades and doesn’t have a single bill to his name. We elected someone president with zero accomplishments in 2008, why would we want to do that again? How can you expect him to be able to lead the country when he can’t lead a single bill to fruition after 20 years?
      3. He even voted against his own bill to audit the Federal Reserve, because he didn’t get every single detail he wanted. He is so stubbornly rigid he simply takes his toys and goes home if he doesn’t get every little detail he wants.
      4. Many of his domestic policies are admirable, but how does he expect to implement them when he will have to work with Congress to get many of them turned into a reality? Will he simply hold his breath until Congress lets him get his way, because he has zero track record of using any other tactic to be successful?
      5. Most of his foreign policies are dangerous. If we pull out of foreign countries, the vacuum WILL be filled by Russia, China, etc. Once you lose your toehold, it is VERY difficult to expand military operations if the need arises. Think about how hard it would have been for the U.S. to fight Hitler if England had fallen. For example, if China decides they don’t want to allow free flow of oil, we would have no recourse, as it takes years, if not decades, to develop independent energy sources. He is simply naive to the point of being a traitor to his own country. Also, we need forward positioned military presence to fight the global war on terror. It isn’t being fought only in Iraq and Afghanistan, there are operations literally around the world preventing future 9/11 type attacks that simply cannot be fought by guarding our own borders, 9/11 should have taught us that. We must therefore disrupt the terrorist cells wherever they are, so they cannot organize, plan, recruit, train, equip, and attack again. To not do this would be suicidal.
      For the above and other reasons, Ron gets the pot smoking and “freedom at any cost” crowd, and that’s all he will ever get…LOL

    • Surfisher says:

      Send this video!

      Romney=Twoface

      (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9njHHyRI7g&feature=player_embedded)

      also:
      The #2 is a paid shill to troll and disrupt this forum with its spewing of hatred. So real Americans can’t converse here without IT hijacking all threads. That’s why this subhuman needs to be banned. One NEVER responds to IT — its existence is to be ignored.

  26. Surfisher says:

    *Mitt Romney, American Parasite*

    (Mitt Grosny — Romney The Terrible (my prefered title))

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article31153.htm

    It explains how Bain Capital worked. They would buy SUCCESSFUL companies, with little down, borrowed huge amounts, saddling them with crushing debt, refused to continue equipment purchases or maintenance. Then they would pay themselves huge “management” fees.
    —————————————————–

    Some notable excerpts:

    “Romney is not a vulture capitalist, as Rick Perry says, since vultures eat dead carcasses,” notes Josh Kosman, who has written about the private equity business for 15 years. He’s “more of a parasitic capitalist, since he destroys profitable businesses.” (The host must be healthy enough to be force-fed all that debt, then slowly bled to death…until the parasites drain all the wealth for themselves).

    “When Bain was about to buy a company, its partners would hold a meeting. “He said that about half the time [they] would talk about cutting workers,” Kosman says. “They would never talk about adding workers. He said that job growth was never part of the plan.” That claim was buttressed by the Associated Press, which studied 45 companies bought by Bain during Romney’s first decade. It found that 4,000 workers lost their jobs. The real figure is likely thousands higher, since the analysis didn’t account for bankruptcies and factory and store closings.

    “The Armco plant closing involved more than the torching of 750 jobs, Morrow says. Contractors and suppliers collapsed. Workers’ children and widows lost health care and pension benefits. And while Bain received millions in tax breaks—paid for by the very people left holding the bag—Romney walked away millions richer.”
    —————————————————-

    A must read (long) article recommended to all!

    Share it!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 476 other followers

%d bloggers like this: