Search results

I believe that Paul is in it to win, but knows that he probably will not win. For some reason people (particularly the media) can't seem to understand this simple concept. If Paul doesn't say, "Oh yes, I'm going to win this!" the media drones say that Paul isn't in it to win. Realistically...

Yup. And never in their wildest dreams would they have guessed that the peace and freedom candidate in 2012 would be a fiscally conservative 76 year old Republican.

Everyone knew going in that Romney would win, the big question was who would come in second. That was no doubt a disappointment for the war mongers.

Because they listen to Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Hannity, and Fox News. The same crowd that assured us 10 years ago that Sadaam Hussein had nuclear bombs (or was close to putting some together) and mobile biological weapons laboratories.

That's how it works. Tell a big lie, get Bill O'Reilly to promote it, and it becomes "true". They don't call it Faux News for nothing. And I say this as a man who is thoroughly disgusted that the <i>rest</i> of the mass media is a subsidiary of the Democratic Party.

I agree that the main reason to vote for a candidate should be 1. The policies he advocates. 2. Whether his past record indicates that he actually means what he says. My problem with Romney is that he fails on (2). On nearly every issue -- abortion, illegal immigration, TARP...

These are fair points. Unfortunately it does take an absurd amount of money to win a Presidential election. The problem is that this usually means that politicians have to prostitute themselves out to big money interests. If George Soros, Bill Gates, Goldman Sachs, or Haliburton sends a bunch...

Yup, Paul has not been bought by lobbyists or billionaires, and gets more support from active duty military than all other Republicans combined. No wonder he scares the establishment so. There is a small chance that we will have a sitting President who <i>isn't</i> one of their puppets.

So this is the same Greece that Germany is supposed to bail out? I'm glad they've found more useful ways to spend tax dollars.

The paper argues that cutting government spending causes some short term and medium term pain. Yup, for a couple of years after the cuts we would be hearing about more unemployment and the like. Then we would have a chance at real recovery. Following the Japanese approach, as we are doing...

Unsurprisingly, that page did not answer my question. An appropriate answer would be something like this: "After the debt reaches $36 trillion we can balance the budget." Although I would like to know how the magic number is derived. The Japanese have been trying to borrow their way...

Just how many more trillions of dollars of debt must we pile up before it will be the right time? And is there any reason to believe that when that time comes (sometime after the Second Coming, I suspect) that any politician other than Ron Paul will agree to real cuts in the budget?

Start your own Romney, Santorum, or Gingrich circle jerk, if you like the standard political whores.

There is never any time when our country's overlords decide that it is appropriate to behave with fiscal responsibility. They run huge deficits during good times and bad. So who should I trust, the Debt is Good Keynesians, who thought the mortgage market was just fine in 2007, or the "kook"...

Yup. One thing that the liberal media and Fox News can agree upon is that Ron Paul must be marginalized at all costs. He is the only real threat to the establishment, due to his evil plans: 1. Serious cuts in spending to reduce the deficit. 2. Not getting into more wars and using our...

I'm sorry you're wasting your vote.

I never joined the armed services because, with the sole exception of a brief attempt at getting Al Qaeda (before we got sidetracked into the Iraq war) I never saw the U.S. military actually defending America. Always they were off fighting somebody else's war. If we had had Ron Paul's...

... and who doesn't: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/lobbyist-donors/2011/10/27/gIQAEuFNNM_graphic.html Ron Paul got more money from me personally than from all lobbyists.

That would be legitimate if AK-47 was advocating for some war. But he's not. To be a chickenhawk you must not only be a chicken, you must be a hawk.

So you really believe that if the United States simply acts like a normal country the Bad Guys (TM) will willy nilly toss nukes all over the place. To my knowledge Iran has not blown up a single embassy. Why would they want to? Your entire opposition to Paul's foreign policy is based on...