+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 42

Thread: Ron Paul in 1st place in South Dakota

  1. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brewskier View Post
    Right. Let's import all the 3rd worlders who want to live here. I'm sure we'll all have higher standard of living.
    Actually, I suggested having a free market in labor, which means allowing the market to allocate labor by allowing people to freely go to where their labor is most needed. Just like the free flow of goods across borders increases prosperity, so does the free flow of labor.

    Unlike me, you seem to agree with Ron Paul on this
    Aggression is always evil.

  2. Stand Taller and Look Better with the LUMOback Posture and Activity Coach. <LINK> Learn More Here! </LINK>

  3. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Slyhunter View Post
    If Ron Paul wins the nomination, people like myself will vote for Obuma. So no he won't win.

    I will not vote for someone who wants to get rid of the minimum wage while at the same time also wants to give any foreigner that wants one a work visa.

    I will not vote for someone who will turn his back on our ally Israel while ignoring Iran's attempts to get a nuclear bomb.
    And if Paul doesn't get the nod you can pretty much count on losing 10-15% of the GOP vote depending on what polls you look at. So either way its another 4 years of Obama?

    .
    "A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers." -
    Friedrich August von Hayek

    "If one rejects laissez faire on account of mans fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action." -Ludwig Von Mises

    "To model our political system upon speculations of lasting tranquility, is to calculate on the weaker springs of the human character." - Alexander Hamilton

  4. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by XxDEATHSHEADxX View Post
    It's disappointing that election after election we've all held our noses and voted for your corrupt sell out GOP establishment candidates and now that we might finally get a constitutionalists nominated you're threatening to vote for a Bolshevik solely so Israel doesn't have to fight its own battles.

    Go ahead.

    If Ron Paul gets the nomination he'll get the entire independent voting block and a lot of disappointed democratis who are sick of war.

    Then, like with Ronald Reagan who the establishment also despised, you can all say in 20 years you're "Ron Paul conservatives" while campaigning for office.

    If he gets the nomination we won't need the Lindsey Graham's of the party to take the election so don't go away mad, just go away.
    Invoking Reagan? The guy Ron Paul didn't like and didn't support?
    "I'm fighting for every nation and every people's right to have their own culture, their own religion, their own homeland. I think multiculturalism is a tool intended to destroy diversity, because there is no such thing as multiculturalism. If you have two cultures in the same place one is ultimately going to prevail over the other, at the expense of the other. So their attempt to implement the multicultural society is an active attempt to destroy European nations, worldwide" - Varg Vikernes

  5. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Roon View Post
    And if Paul doesn't get the nod you can pretty much count on losing 10-15% of the GOP vote depending on what polls you look at. So either way its another 4 years of Obama?

    .
    And you'll be very happy when that happens, too. The good of the country can't match that thrill Paul sends up the leg of his supporters. It's almost like Obamamania.
    Last edited by Brewskier; Dec 16 2011 at 04:27 PM.
    "I'm fighting for every nation and every people's right to have their own culture, their own religion, their own homeland. I think multiculturalism is a tool intended to destroy diversity, because there is no such thing as multiculturalism. If you have two cultures in the same place one is ultimately going to prevail over the other, at the expense of the other. So their attempt to implement the multicultural society is an active attempt to destroy European nations, worldwide" - Varg Vikernes

  6. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AbsoluteVoluntarist View Post
    Ron Paul first choice for SD GOP, says poll



    True, South Dakota isn't an early state; in fact, it's one of the last. However, this is more evidence of Ron Paul's long term viability as a candidate. According to another recent poll, Ron Paul is neck-and-neck with Gingrich for 1st in Iowa.

    In addition, he also does better against Obama than almost any of the other candidates.

    How many states will Ron Paul need to be in 1st or close 2nd in before the apologists of the status quo are forced to admit he may very well be the next President of the United States?
    Ugh ! Ugh ! ... 3 Stooges Film Festival warranted.

  7. Default

    According to Fox news if Ron Paul wins Iowa it will be a victory for Romney. WTF

    They are suck asses.
    Anarchism: Voluntary co-operation instead of forced participation

  8. Default

    Yeah, heard that too. That's been the narrative for a few days now.
    And did you see Bret at the debate? "Congressman Paul, will you give your WORD you won't run as a third party candidate if you don't get the nomination?"

    Fox News is disgusting. It's a chicken-hawk network.

  9. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brewskier View Post
    Invoking Reagan? The guy Ron Paul didn't like and didn't support?
    RP was one of the few that supported Reagan early on. He publicly withdrew his support for him later. He has never lied about this.

    Here is his resignation letter sent to the GOP Chairman in 1987.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    As a lifelong Republican, it saddens me to have to write this letter. My parents believed in the Republican Party and its free enterprise philosophy, and that's the way I was brought up. At age 21, in 1956, I cast my first vote for Ike and the entire Republican slate.

    Because of frustration with the direction in which the country was going, I became a political activist and ran for the U.S. Congress in 1974. Even with Watergate, my loyalty, optimism, and hope for the future were tied to the Republican Party and its message of free enterprise, limited government, and balanced budgets.

    Eventually I was elected to the U.S. Congress four times as a Republican. This permitted me a first-hand look at the interworkings of the U.S. Congress, seeing both the benefits and partisan frustrations that guide its shaky proceedings. I found that although representative government still exists, special interest control of the legislative process clearly presents a danger to our constitutional system of government.

    In 1976 I was impressed with Ronald Reagan's program and was one of the four members of Congress who endorsed his candidacy. In 1980, unlike other Republican office holders in Texas, I again supported our President in his efforts.

    Since 1981, however, I have gradually and steadily grown weary of the Republican Party's efforts to reduce the size of the federal government. Since then Ronald Reagan and the Republican Party have given us skyrocketing deficits, and astoundingly a doubled national debt. How is it that the party of balanced budgets, with control of the White House and Senate, accumulated red ink greater than all previous administrations put together? Tip O'Neill, although part of the problem, cannot alone be blamed.

    Tax revenues are up 59 percent since 1980. Because of our economic growth? No. During Carter's four years, we had growth of 37.2 percent; Reagan's five years have given us 30.7 percent. The new revenues are due to four giant Republican tax increases since 1981.

    All republicans rightly chastised Carter for his $38 billion deficit. But they ignore or even defend deficits of $220 billion, as government spending has grown 10.4 percent per year since Reagan took office, while the federal payroll has zoomed by a quarter of a million bureaucrats.

    Despite the Supply-Sider-Keynesian claim that "deficits don't matter," the debt presents a grave threat to our country. Thanks to the President and Republican Party, we have lost the chance to reduce the deficit and the spending in a non-crisis fashion. Even worse, big government has been legitimized in a way the Democrats never could have accomplished. It was tragic to listen to Ronald Reagan on the 1986 campaign trail bragging about his high spending on farm subsidies, welfare, warfare, etc., in his futile effort to hold on to control of the Senate.

    Instead of cutting some of the immeasurable waste in the Department of Defense, it has gotten worse, with the inevitable result that we are less secure today. Reagan's foreign aid expenditures exceed Eisenhower's, Kennedy's, Johnson's, Nixon's, Ford's, and Carter's put together. Foreign intervention has exploded since 1980. Only an end to military welfare for foreign governments plus a curtailment of our unconstitutional commitments abroad will enable us really to defend ourselves and solve our financial problems.

    Amidst the failure of the Gramm-Rudman gimmick, we hear the President and the Republican Party call for a balanced-budget amendment and a line-item veto. This is only a smokescreen. President Reagan, as governor of California, had a line-item veto and virtually never used it. As President he has failed to exercise his constitutional responsibility to veto spending. Instead, he has encouraged it.

    Monetary policy has been disastrous as well. The five Reagan appointees to the Federal Reserve Board have advocated even faster monetary inflation than Chairman Volcker, and this is the fourth straight year of double-digit increases. The chickens have yet to come home to roost, but they will, and America will suffer from a Reaganomics that is nothing but warmed-over Keynesianism.

    Candidate Reagan in 1980 correctly opposed draft registration. Yet when he had the chance to abolish it, he reneged, as he did on his pledge to abolish the Departments of Education and Energy, or to work against abortion.

    Under the guise of attacking drug use and money laundering, the Republican Administration has systematically attacked personal and financial privacy. The effect has been to victimize innocent Americans who wish to conduct their private lives without government snooping. (Should people really be put on a suspected drug dealer list because they transfer $3,000 at one time?) Reagan's urine testing of Americans without probable cause is a clear violation of our civil liberties, as are his proposals for extensive "lie detector" tests.

    Under Reagan, the IRS has grown bigger, richer, more powerful, and more arrogant. In the words of the founders of our country, our government has "sent hither swarms" of tax gatherers "to harass our people and eat out their substance." His officers jailed the innocent George Hansen, with the

    President refusing to pardon a great American whose only crime was to defend the Constitution. Reagan's new tax "reform" gives even more power to the IRS. Far from making taxes fairer or simpler, it deceitfully raises more revenue for the government to waste.

    Knowing this administration's record, I wasn't surprised by its Libyan disinformation campaign, Israeli-Iranian arms-for-hostages swap, or illegal funding of the Contras. All this has contributed to my disenchantment with the Republican Party, and helped me make up my mind.

    I want to totally disassociate myself from the policies that have given us unprecedented deficits, massive monetary inflation, indiscriminate military spending, an irrational and unconstitutional foreign policy, zooming foreign aid, the exaltation of international banking, and the attack on our personal liberties and privacy.

    After years of trying to work through the Republican Party both in and out of government, I have reluctantly concluded that my efforts must be carried on outside the Republican Party. Republicans know that the Democratic agenda is dangerous to our political and economic health. Yet, in the past six years Republicans have expanded its worst aspects and called them our own. The Republican Party has not reduced the size of government. It has become big government's best friend.

    If Ronald Reagan couldn't or wouldn't balance the budget, which Republican leader on the horizon can we possibly expect to do so? There is no credibility left for the Republican Party as a force to reduce the size of government. That is the message of the Reagan years.

    I conclude that one must look to other avenues if a successful effort is ever to be achieved in reversing America's direction.

    I therefore resign my membership in the Republican Party and enclose my membership card.
    ______________________

    The principle for which we contend is bound to reassert itself, though it may be at another time and in another form..... Jefferson Davis

    "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle".
    .....Edmund Burke

    "Then, Sir, we will give them the bayonet!"..... Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson

  10. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AbsoluteVoluntarist View Post
    How many states will Ron Paul need to be in 1st or close 2nd in before the apologists of the status quo are forced to admit he may very well be the next President of the United States?
    Tough to say. I have noticed so much neglect for even the slightest possibility of him winning. You have people like Mark Levin that claim to be against the establishment republicans and say that Ron Paul will not get the nomination all while giving no reasons as to why other than the typical semantics. They really like to take one of his positions and misrepresent it and say "see how crazy he is!?!? what a crackpot!" Not even once have I heard a legitimate and logical explanation as to why Ron Paul's views are wrong. Any time I or anyone else asks it is usually followed by a "If you don't know then you wouldn't understand." or "Its right out in front of you, I'm not going to explain it." or something along those lines.

    With the current polls showing Ron Paul having a good chance at winning these early states, I think he has a really good chance at winning the nomination. I can almost guarantee he will win Texas and I bet his chances for California are pretty good too.

    What I find funny is how the anti-paul people try to make it seem as if Ron Paul doesn't have that much support when in reality that isn't true. Instead the amount of people who's vote is based solely on foreign policy instead of the economy or budget crisis and won't vote for Ron Paul because of that is what is really low but the media will never tell you that.

    Edit: I'd also like to point out something I thought to be quite interesting. I remember back when everyone thought that Bachman was going to win. That died quickly. Then Perry joined and he was considered to be the top choice but oh look, he fell too. And then Cain was at the top and just a few weeks later he drops out of the race! Gingrich is at the top now but that will not last. Romney has shown that he essentially has a support ceiling of around 30% I don't see Santorum or Huntsman climbing to the top. All that's left is Ron Paul, who just so happens to be tied for 1st place in Iowa.
    Last edited by Jash2o2; Dec 16 2011 at 07:55 PM.
    "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule where 51 percent of the people may take away the rights of the other 49."

    - Thomas Jefferson

    "The sad thing is, our foreign policy WILL change eventually, as Rome’s did, when all budgetary and monetary tricks to fund it are exhausted."

    - Ron Paul

  11. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brewskier View Post
    And you'll be very happy when that happens, too. The good of the country can't match that thrill Paul sends up the leg of his supporters. It's almost like Obamamania.
    Any Republican other than Ron Paul will do about the same (*)(*)(*)(*) Obama has been doing so I really don't see a difference.
    "A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers." -
    Friedrich August von Hayek

    "If one rejects laissez faire on account of mans fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action." -Ludwig Von Mises

    "To model our political system upon speculations of lasting tranquility, is to calculate on the weaker springs of the human character." - Alexander Hamilton

+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks