Ron Paul

1. 67

   Jed Fisherposted 12 years ago

   Ron Paul supporters tend to be young. This is because what Paul believes matches what students learned in Government class. It’s that simple.
   Opponents of Paul have only one argument against him; they say he’s unelectable but can’t say why.

   replyreport
   1. 81

      Wesman Todd Shawposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      The US Education (read: indoctrination) departments must not have gotten around to changing Government classes to match global government propaganda yet.

      replyreport
      1. 67

         Jed Fisherposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         True. They include a copy of the US Constitution in the text book, guess that's the problem.

         replyreport
         1. 77

            Bendo13posted 12 years agoin reply to this

            That is uncalled for... they're still teaching people about the US Constitution!??  This has to stop... didn't Bush tell you that it was just a piece of paper?
            
            Haha... really though, I'm 29 and I learned more about history and what's really going on through studies on my own, outside of school, than I ever learned in school.
            
            And yes, I will vote for Ron Paul.. not because of some class but because of what I've seen go on through the years, because of the state we're in now and because he will bring change, a change that scares many people.  People who want things to stay as is... but yet somehow change for the better?
            
            What was the definition of insanity again... hmm?

            replyreport
            1. 61

               Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               I work in the public education system and EVERY teacher hates what our system has become.
               
               Test after Test after TEST after TEST.
               
               The kids think that it's normal.
               
               Anyway, the Social Studies teachers openly admit: "I didn't learn this stuff until after high school. I didn't care about this crap until I got the power to vote".

               replyreport
      2. 61

         Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Naw, that's not it.
         
         I've read the textbooks: it's all there.
         
         It's just that everyone knows it's bullshit and they just sort of believe it until they hear the truth.
         
         Then the truth rings so loud in their head that they eat it up, and proceed to devour more and more.

         replyreport
   2. 76

      Deni Edwardsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Most of Ron Paul's supporters are young and have no living family members who:  have Black Lung disease; have asbestos poisoning;  couldn't initiate divorce because she was a female; couldn't apply for a position because she was female; worked in a factory 12 hours and didn't get paid; went deaf because the employer wouldn't provide ear plugs at the job; fell off of scaffolding because a harness wasn't required by the employer; was forced to work at 8 years old; wasn't allowed to drink from the "white" drinking fountain; etc.
      
      All of these things were regulated by the government (after pressure), and it is all of these agencies and laws that Ron Paul doesn't like, and his young followers have no clue about.  Most of America likes these changes.
      
      Young people don't realize that every thing they have was fought for--their breaks and lunch hours, their minimum wage jobs, their birth control availability, their equality; etc.
      
      Ron Paul is not electable because he is to the extreme right and to the extreme left and he is also in outer space.  The republicans sure as hell won't nominate him, neither would the dems.  His only option is running on a third-party ticket, where in some places the candidate must be written in.  He doesn't stand a chance.  There are too many normal people.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         None of those things you listed were ended by unconstitutional Federal Measurements.
         
         So... generally, you're argument is moot.

         replyreport
   3. 82

      manlypoetrymanposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I heard a "why"...but not sure if it is from a reputable source: Ron Paul = "an angry old grandpa...that can be compared to Elmer Fudd".
      
      Not sure if that is grounds to be "unelectable"...though

      replyreport
      1. 63

         Greek Oneposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         As you will see from my Hubpages biography of the man, although Elmer Fudd was also a republican, he was be know means Ron Paul-like.
         
         Where he alive today, he would be greatly offended by your comparison.

         replyreport
         1. 82

            manlypoetrymanposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            
            
            My apologies...Elmer

            replyreport
   4. 66

      Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Simply put, his positions are too radical, too far from the mainstream. He rejects too many features of our government that have been adopted democratically to deal with issues of public concern and which have worked not perfectly but tolerably well--e.g., the Federal Reserve, Social Security, Medicare, environmental regulations, workplace safety regulations, child labor laws, unemployment compensation, airline regulations, motor vehicle safety standards, and civil rights legislation and many others. The only reasonable argument is what regulations are needed in order to assure that the free market delivers honestly and fairly on its promise of efficient allocation of resources, NOT on whether such regulation is necessary.

      replyreport
   5. 67

      bgamallposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Ron Paul believes deregulation will fix everything. Only, when we deregulated by the repeal of Glass Steagall and by allowing swaps to be gambled, we went backwards in the world. The libertarians were wrong then and they are wrong now.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Oh, I've been waiting to see you on the forums: Did you know that the very thing that you fight against, and blame the recent crash on -- speculators and greedy men -- is exactly what the boss of Business Insider had to pay $4 million for?
         
         Henry Blodget:
         http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Blodget
         
         I found this out because he wrote so many anti-Ron Paul articles. Then the Ron Paul fans investigated him and found out he had to settle a $4million agreement with the SEC.
         
         .... then the comments that had the info were taken down a few days later....

         replyreport
2. 79

   mypleasurefantasyposted 12 years ago

   I'm not political, but I don't believe he will get elected because he's considered to "off the wall". Even though hey may correct a lot of what's wrong, it will never happen.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      He's gonna win. Quit listening to CNN and FOX  - they don't want him to win.

      replyreport
      1. 72

         Quilligrapherposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Hi Evan. Nice to chat with you again.
         
         I realize you are more passionate than realistic when talking about Ron Paul but I do not expect him to be our next president nor are CNN and Fox the reasons. It is my view…
         1. If elected, he will be 77 years old when sworn in and 85 if he lives through a second term. This fact alone makes his vice-presidential running mate the more important of the two.   
         2. Ron Paul’s ability to solicit donations from the readers of a racist newsletter bearing his name and then to pretend he was unaware of its contents reflects on his character and is clearly his way of denying his responsibility for his own past alliances.   
         3. Ron Paul is an isolationist who would reshape the USA from a leader in the free world to a third rate country, a pawn in the world’s struggle to avoid nuclear self-destruction. 
         4. Ron Paul’s foreign policy positions are opposed by a majority of his own party. If elected, he would be ineffective when conducting our international affairs.
         5. Ron Paul’s opposition to the Federal Reserve places him at odds with the sources of financial support he would need to run an effect national campaign. He could never sell enough newsletter subscriptions to make up for the lost support.
         6. Ron Paul is an idealist. He attacks windmills because he can not deal with the real world in which we live. He thinks businesses have a right to have separate lunch counters and water fountains. His vision of the future is not what other Americans want for their country. 
         
         I wish you well in your vocal support for Dr. Paul. Your enthusiasm is interesting to watch but difficult to comprehend.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            blah blah blah.
            
            Ron Paul can raise over a million in a night if he needs.
            
            I know you like being polite and everything, but you're just wrong. It's pointless to debate with you.
            
            It's astonishing to see "let's quit bombing people" be described as "isolationist" --- ESPECIALLY FROM A LIBERAL.

            replyreport
            1. 72

               Quilligrapherposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Hey there, Evan. I respect you because you are always a gentleman. Obviously, you have your reasons for wanting to see Ron Paul elected. I gave you my reasons why I do not. I’m not trying to change your mind and on one thing, we agree. It is pointless to debate any issue if you have run out of points.
               
               I did not describe “let’s quit bombing people” as isolationism. It is unfair of you to make that claim in your reply. In fact, the phrase sounds quite humanitarian, to say the least, and I totally agree with the sentiment.
               
               Ron Paul has positioned HIMSELF as an isolationist. He has opposed just about every international treaty and nearly every US attempt to participate in the world community. He advocates withdrawal from the UN and NATO. He would have us turn our back to the rest of the world. He does not favor reducing foreign aid; he wants to eliminate it. He pledged to reduce the military budget and abolish the CIA. I am NOT the one saying he is an isolationist. He has defined himself as such.
               
               Why do I think extreme isolation is bad for the US? Two reasons. I have seen how President G. W. Bush damaged our relationships with our allies by thinking he could go it alone. And, going back before your time, I remember how our reluctance to get involved in European affairs in the 1930s led Hitler to presume, and rightly so, that America would not interfere with his plan to dominate all of Europe. Because of our hesitation, he nearly succeeded. A successful foreign policy needs allies, even the kind you have to buy.
               
               You can save your labels. They do not define who or what is right or wrong. They only enable the less informed to attack the label instead of the discussing the issue. While many are content to dream about living in Utopia, I prefer to see the world as it is. Bad guys out there want what we have. I prefer that we grapple with them on their turf than on ours.
               
               I can hear you saying, “Blah, blah, blah!”
               
               I am hoping that you have a real pleasant day.

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Blah blah blah. These arguments can be destroyed without effort.
                  
                  He has never called himself an isolationist. Objecting to international treaties does not make one an isolationist. Free-trade (which is quite counter to international treaties) is anti-isolating (solating? Insulating?)
                  
                  And, for icing on the cake:
                  And it's ironic to hear you say "save the labels" when you're quick to label others.

                  replyreport
                  1. 61

                     Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     HERE is REAL isolationism:
                     
                     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sakoku
                     
                     Even if they let you in, you have to live on an island!
                     
                     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dejima
                     
                     Dejima literally translates to "outside island"!! A real isolationist would demand that foreigners live in a "foreigner island"!!

                     replyreport
         2. 61

            Ron Montgomeryposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            

            replyreport
         3. 67

            Jed Fisherposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            I thank you, Quilligrapher, for presenting the most intelligent, most comprehensive list I’ve ever seen as to why Dr. Paul is labeled ‘unelectable.’
            
            But here’s my response:
            “85 if he lives through a second term.” Well, all our ex-presidents seem to be living past that age.
            “Racist newsletter” A newsletter that had, over a period of ten years, had in it perhaps six phrases, if taken out of context, that hinted at what might have been interpreted as racists.
            “Ron Paul is an isolationist.” Look at US Foreign Policy before the creation of the Fed in 1913. The Fed made America the piggybank for the Banksters who funded both sides of WW1 and WW2. (We have met the enemy, and he is us!)
            “He would be ineffective when conducting our international affairs.” A lot of pipsqueak countries would suddenly find ways to get along with their neighbors if America wasn’t there to fight their wars for them.
            “Ron Paul’s opposition to the Federal Reserve.” That, first and foremost, is why I support Dr. Paul. The Fed controls our money supply, and our Fed bows to an international banking cartel. It says so, at the BIS (Bank of International Settlement) web site. No conspiracy, nothing hidden, no secrets, it’s all right there. Read it and weep over the death of America's sovereignty.
            “Ron Paul is an idealist.” Precisely why he should be elected.
            
            Thanks again for your list.
            I do appreciate it.

            replyreport
            1. 72

               Quilligrapherposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Thank you, Jed, for your kind words. With me, flattery will get you everywhere! Honestly, I appreciate the time you put into your comments and I am grateful that you confined your remarks to my post without introducing other new issues. Your efforts deserve a detailed response.I'm sorry, Jed, but I think you shot yourself in the foot. At 77, Ron Paul would be the oldest president ever elected and inaugurated. Of all 43 ex-presidents (addendum for Evan: elected under the current Constitution), only 7 (16%) lived to 85. (1) If former Presidents G.W. Bush and Clinton live another 19 years, they could change this fact to 9 out of, say, 46, or less than 20%. Therefore, using this sample, the odds are between 4 to 1 and 6 to 1 that Ron Paul will die before he completes two terms in office.In this regard, I must respect your opinion that "perhaps six phrases, if taken out of context, that hinted at what might have been interpreted as racists" is okay by your standards. However, like many Americans, I am asking myself why a medical doctor born in Pennsylvania, living in Texas since 1968, and proclaiming he is not a racist, did not take corrective action after the FIRST instance in a newsletter bearing HIS name. 
               
               Furthermore, let's look as some of the phrases you suggest only "hinted" at racism. Following the Watts riots in 1992, one said, "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began." It also denounced "the media" for believing that "America's number one need is an unlimited white checking account for underclass blacks." An October 1992 Paul Newsletter advised: "I've urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming." In June 1991, a Ron Paul newsletter entry on racial disturbances in Washington, DC's Adams Morgan neighborhood was titled, "Animals Take Over the D.C. Zoo." As for phrases being quoted out of context, Jed, how can you and Dr. Paul justify "the animals are coming?"(2)I accept this as your agreeing with me that Ron Paul has positioned HIMSELF as leaning towards isolationism and you have your reasons for being okay with this. As for me, I stated two reasons above why I think this is a dangerous policy for the USA and for the world. I'll pass on this one, Jed. Your statement is too vague.Yes, Jed, we agree that Ron Paul is an idealist. Do you have ideals? I know that I do. Nevertheless, it takes more than ideals to lead the most powerful nation in the world. Check "idealist" in your dictionary: "one guided by ideals; especially: one that places ideals before practical considerations." (3)On this point, I beg your indulgence. I consider your comment to be of major importance and one that deserves a separate discussion. I will place my thoughts in another section.
               
               (1)http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0194030.html
               (2)http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/ … uls-racism
               (3)http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/idealist

               replyreport
            2. 72

               Quilligrapherposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               The Federal Reserve Act provides that the president of a Federal Reserve Bank shall be the chief executive officer of the Bank, appointed by the board of deirectors of the bank with the approval of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. The seven members of the Board of Governors are nominated by the President of the United States and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. (1)
               
               You have me at a disadvantage, Jed. I did not find “our Fed bows to an international banking cartel” anywhere on the BIS web site. However, I will share what I did find:
               “The BIS currently has 60 member central banks, all of which are entitled to be represented and vote in the General Meetings. Voting power is proportionate to the number of BIS shares issued in the country of each member represented at the meeting.” (2)  I see where the FED, as the central bank of the USA, is a member with voting power proportionate to the shares it holds. You are correct, Jed. I, too, found “No conspiracy, nothing hidden, no secrets.”
               
               Elsewhere on the web site, I read:
               
               “On 8 January 2001, an Extraordinary General Meeting of the BIS decided to restrict the right to hold shares in the BIS exclusively to central banks and approved the mandatory repurchase of all 72,648 BIS shares held by private shareholders as of that date against payment of compensation of CHF 16,000 per share.” (3) Clearly, the organization is comprised “exclusively” of the worlds central banks after ALL private shareholders were bought out after 2001. Again, “No conspiracy, nothing hidden, no secrets.”
               
               You must point out where I will find “our Fed bows to an international banking cartel” because our Fed a leading member of THE international banking cartel. You must also point out how the Fed’s participation in a consortium of the world’s central banks represents “the death of America's sovereignty.” Central banks work together on a global scale. It is the reason why we have a central bank. Ben Bernanke manages our Fed; Gaddafi’s people managed Libya’s central bank, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. I hope you are not allowing yourself to be convinced by conspiracy groups that do not understand how countries conduct their financial affairs on a global basis. I would welcome your further clarification on this matter.   
               
               (1)http://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/default.htm
               (2)http://www.bis.org/about/orggov.htm
               (3)http://www.bis.org/about/shareswd.htm

               replyreport
               1. 66

                  Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  +++The Federal Reserve isn't perfect, but economic chaos would result without it. Ron Paul is an amateur economist with extremely radical, uninformed opinions. He should stick to obstetrics.
                  
                  http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/13/busin … amp;st=cse
                  
                  "As the housing bubble entered its waning hours in 2006, top Federal Reserve officials marveled at the desperate antics of home builders seeking to lure buyers.
                  
                  The officials laughed about the cars that builders were offering as signing bonuses, and about efforts to make empty homes look occupied. They joked about one builder who said that inventory was “rising through the roof.”
                  
                  But the officials, meeting every six weeks to discuss the health of the nation’s economy, gave little credence to the possibility that the faltering housing market would weigh on the broader economy, according to transcripts that the Fed released Thursday. Instead they continued to tell one another throughout 2006 that the greatest danger was inflation — the possibility that the economy would grow too fast. "

                  replyreport
            3. 61

               Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               The opposition to Ron Paul is getting so easy to destroy.
               
               I can break through any attack on Paul right after I wake up and before I drink my coffee.

               replyreport
3. 70

   emmaspeaksposted 12 years ago

   I agree with Deny. He claims he wants to let each state decide and overturn laws and amendments that are "unconstitutional". Well, that's like taking away everything we have worked hard for as a country and telling us that we have to work for it all over again. Not too smart if you ask me. Also, he is a Young Earth Creationist. Enough said.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Nonsense: The tenth amendment makes "state power" undeniable. Please brush up on your understanding of the Constitution.
      
      http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

      replyreport
      1. 70

         emmaspeaksposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         I understand the constitution just fine, sweetie. This is what the old coot says. Look up some interviews, or read a hub I did on him. HE says he wants to turn over power to the states and overturn any law that is "unconstitutional'.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            I've done nothing but research Ron Paul. I can quote his books from memory.
            
            I've seen every video of him out on the net. Seriously. I wake up and do google searches of his name with the time limit set to "24 hours" so that I can catch everything I've missed since I've gone to bed.
            
            I don't think you understand the constitution if you don't agree with him. Crash course in the constitution:
            
            The federal government is not allowed to do anything that is not listed in Article 1 section 8 because of the 10th amendment; and the states can not do anything prohibited to them via A1S10. That which is not mentioned is reserved to the people.
            
            I know it's hard to take the medicine, but I'm being genuine: Go back and read the Constitution word for word. Start with the 10th amendment. It's a great read.
            
            I like the Articles of Confederation better (no, not the South's Constitution). It's hilarious to remind people that, no, George Washington was not our first president. John Hanson was.

            replyreport
            1. 62

               steveamyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               The Articles was a completely ineffectual government.....Had Hamilton, Madison et. al. not gone to Philadelphia it is unlikely that the US as we know it would be around.

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Actually, it worked quite well. There were no problems whatsoever except for massive debt brought on by inflation.
                  
                  Most of the reasons given were similar to reasons given today to pass things like the PATRIOT Act: we're too weak, we need a strong government, consolidate money supply into the hands of a few, we'll be attacked.
                  
                  The state that ended up ratifying the Constitution - Virginia - immediately regretted its decision. John Taylor and Patrick Henry actually predicted just about everything that would happen if they passed the Constitution - Virginia quickly lost sovereignty and was bossed around by the weaker northern states.
                  
                  I recommend Kevin C. Gutzman's "Virginia's American Revolution"
                  
                  And, for further understanding of why consolidation of government isn't a good thing, look to the EU. How many of those countries are absolutely broke?

                  replyreport
4. 65

   HistoryProdigyposted 12 years ago

   I love Ron Paul and I would vote for him if he gets nominated. Here are my three reasons of many:
   
   1. He plans to cut out one trillion dollars of spending in the first year.
   2. He believes that the United States should not police the world and only go to war when congress DECLARES war.
   3. He wants to make the Federal Government smaller and give the states more freedom.
   
   "Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have ... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases." - Thomas Jefferson
   
   "I heartily endorse the motto, 'That government is best which governs least'; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically." -Henry David Thoreau

   replyreport
5. 60

   mel22posted 12 years ago

   Not sure how liberty is so tough to comprehend but i second the notion of BLAH! BlAH! BlAH!

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      It's what hubpages has come down to:
      
      Me: "Read the constitution"
      
      Them: "I READ IT, AND IT SAYS WE CAN ASSASSINATE CITIZENS"
      
      only logical response: "Blah blah blah. Next?"
      
      I mean, what can you say when the person you're arguing with doesn't bother stating things correctly, but then claims that your correct description is wrong?
      
      It's just not worth discussing.
      
      Me: "Not killing people is NOT isolationist"
      
      Them: "Yes it is. And it's also isolationist when we don't give a billion dollars to other countries"
      
      The only logical response: "blah blah blah"

      replyreport
6. 51

   Kadmielsposted 12 years ago

   i disagree most of the young do like him but it is becuase we are the ones that will run the future and we want it done right not with the corrupt baby boomers

   replyreport
7. 74

   Reality Bytesposted 12 years ago

   It is very soon but the signs do lead to a Romney/Paul ticket. Not Ron but his son Rand will be picked by Romney as VP.  We are a long way out but that is what I see unfolding.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I'm not sure I'd vote for a Romney Rand ticket.
      
      His son isn't as libertarian as he is, and the VP is largely just a figurehead.

      replyreport
      1. 74

         Reality Bytesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Evan, I would like nothing better then to see Ron Paul 2012.  What I see happening is the moneybrokers fear a Ron Paul administration.  That is why Gingrich, Perry, Santorum and Huntsman will continue to remain in the race.  To take away enough percentage of the vote from Paul to assure Romney is the nominee. 
         
         These candidates will continue to see their coffers full for just this reason.  I believe Paul could and would win a general election.  The establishment will not allow him the chance.  I think Romney will pick Rand as VP to secure a Ron Paul endorsement which will equate to a huge swell in votes.
         
         Either way Ron Paul has changed the discourse of the election.  He has opened up many minds through common sense and a new enlightenment as to the true meaning of the Constitution.
         
         If I had my choice Judge Andrew Napolitano would be the VP pick. To be exact I would fully support Mr. Napolitano as President but for some reason the guy has no political ambitions that I can see.  Which makes me respect him even more.  He has fully endorsed Ron Paul and has been campaigning for him for months.
         
         If the judge is not on your reading list Evan add him.  Especially if your 24 hour news alerts on Ron Paul is not enough to satisfy your thirst for knowledge.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Huntsman just dropped.
            
            Napolitano is great.
            
            I kind of feel like Rand would refuse a VP position.

            replyreport
8. 0

   icountthetimesposted 12 years ago

   Young people tend to be open to new or different ideas. You only need to hear the kind of things some people say when they reach a certain age, to realise that they aren't going to budge on their worldview no matter what.

   replyreport
9. 61

   Evan G Rogersposted 12 years ago

   Ron Paul just got the endorsement of SC Conservative Senator Tom Davis!
   
   "It's easy to campaign on lower taxes, less spending and fewer regulations -- it's another thing entirely to stand up for these limited government principles when the entire Washington establishment is aligned against you. Yet for more than three decades Ron Paul has cast thousands of lonely votes in our nation's capital based on the constitutional principles that this country was founded on -- and that the Republican Party has promised to protect. Yet while generations of politicians -- including far too many Republicans -- were losing their way or caving to the status quo, Ron Paul was standing as a Tea Party of one against a towering wave of red ink.
   
   "2012 marks the fifth consecutive year in which the federal government is going to spend well over $1 trillion in money it doesn't have. Each and every American taxpayer is now on the hook for $135,000 worth of federal debt -- and last year's debt deal adds another $7 trillion in deficit spending over the coming decade. Meanwhile the U.S. Senate hasn't passed a budget in nearly 1,000 days.
   
   "I'm endorsing Ron Paul because enough is enough. Despite this wave of unprecedented government spending, our unemployment rate has remained above 8 percent for the last 34 months and 146.4 million Americans -- one out of every two people in this country -- are now classified as poor or low-income.
   
   "Government activism and government intervention clearly hasn't fixed our economy -- which is why the Republican Party needs a nominee who isn't wedded to that failed approach. We won't chart a path to fiscal solvency or victory in November by running toward the failed ideas of the left -- we will achieve those victories by returning to the principles that the Republican Party once stood for.
   
   "That is why I am proud to endorse Ron Paul for president.
   
   "Ron Paul's record matches his rhetoric, his fiscal plan matches the fiscal challenges that our nation is facing and his movement represents the taxpayers whose interests have been ignored in the political process for far too long.
   
   "I'm also endorsing him because unlike what the pundits have led you to believe, he is the candidate who gives the Republican Party the best chance to beat Barack Obama in November.
   
   "We have a choice: We can keep electing candidates who talk about change only during political campaigns as a way to get elected, or we can finally elect a candidate who will walk the walk and make that change a reality -- restoring our bottom line, our individual liberties and our national pride in the process."

   replyreport
   1. 62

      steveamyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      will this matter one iota in South Carolina???

      replyreport
10. 61

    Evan G Rogersposted 12 years ago

    For those of you leaving Jon Huntsman, I recommend you consider Ron Paul:
    
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2iLWxc- … r_embedded

    replyreport
11. 62

    steveamyposted 12 years ago

    to quote Evan Rodgers.....blah...blah...
    blah

    replyreport
    1. 61

       Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       You misspelled my name.
       
       Sorry that you don't have history right.

       replyreport
       1. 62

          steveamyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          sorry for the typo....but blah ... blah ....blah is so condescending.....

          replyreport
          1. 61

             Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

             That's fine. I got no problem with condescending.
             
             But this is one case where the blah-er is wrong.

             replyreport
             1. 62

                steveamyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                of course you don't mind being condescending ......

                replyreport
                1. 61

                   Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                   If the person's wrong, and won't admit it, what's the point?
                   
                   I first used "blah blah blah" when I told the same person that Ron Paul isn't an isolationist.

                   replyreport
12. 61

    Evan G Rogersposted 12 years ago

    NY Times, to some degree, admits that they ignored Paul... as though it needed to be admitted...
    
    http://blog.nj.com/njv_paul_mulshine/20 … sixed.html

    replyreport