jump to last post 1-15 of 15 discussions (102 posts)

He's Electable. Deal With It.

  1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
    Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago

    Ron Paul beats Obama.

    He's electable.

    Deal with it.

    http://www.thestatecolumn.com/articles/ … ationally/

    1. Vladimir Uhri profile image60
      Vladimir Uhriposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I love Dr. Paul. I am just concern about his defense onion. The president should only defend our country and our Constitution.

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
        Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        He agrees with you.

    2. Greek One profile image79
      Greek Oneposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Pay Pal bet!?!?!?

    3. IntimatEvolution profile image82
      IntimatEvolutionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      This guy I would vote for, and I voted for Obama.   His gold standard idea is a bad idea in my humble opinion.  But he'd never get that passed anyways...  So he is the most electable Rep. Candidate.  Romney will not win...  Sorry to admit this but Midwestern folks are not going to vote for a Mormon.  That's a fact already seen in the primary.

    4. Ralph Deeds profile image71
      Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      He won't even get the nomination, let alone beat Obama. He's an off-the-chart radical.

  2. Gypsy Willow profile image79
    Gypsy Willowposted 5 years ago

    The only one I would chose if push came to shove!

  3. Evan G Rogers profile image82
    Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago

    Ron Paul's supporters are verifying exit poll results because the Republican Party is trying to screw them over

    http://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/2/prweb9233980.htm

  4. Paul Wingert profile image79
    Paul Wingertposted 5 years ago

    In August 2008 McCain was beating Obama like a red headed stepchild.

    1. puppypaws profile image59
      puppypawsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Hi, Paul, love your new picture and mustache.

  5. Mighty Mom profile image91
    Mighty Momposted 5 years ago

    Funny, my husband told me just this morning he'd seen the first polls that had Obama winning against every GOP candidate.
    Guess it depends on which polls you read and which day it is.
    Rasmussen is notoriously right wing, btw.

  6. Paul Wingert profile image79
    Paul Wingertposted 5 years ago

    These early polls are pretty worthless. I can't imagine a debate between Ron Paul and Obama. Obama would tear him apart.

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Obama would be destroyed. I pray such a debate takes place.

      Could you imagine the wise man standing next to Obama just RELENTLESSLY hounding him:

      "You signed the NDAA, and clearly hate freedom"
      "You killed thousands of people, and started 5 undeclared wars - and lied about them"
      "You assassinated a US citizen without a trial! You're officially a tyrant"
      "You said we would be out of Iraq in the first 3 months, but then it took you 3 years to not even leave at all"
      "Your ObamaCare is an economic nightmare"

      Oh man, it would be GREAT.

      1. pisean282311 profile image58
        pisean282311posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        but why do u want to destroy best president of recent times...after disaster called bush , i thought republican party wont get votes for 16 yrs...

        1. lovemychris profile image82
          lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          They're great at re-writing history.

          Nothing bad ever happened until Obama was elected.

          1. pisean282311 profile image58
            pisean282311posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            lol ya right...worst happened before that since bush became president...it was followed by "bad" as per ur view about obama and now u want to bring back worst?....usa can progress if democrats stay otherwise we would have war with Iran , North Korea and economy would go from bad to worst....

            1. lovemychris profile image82
              lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Yes...N. Korea just gave up Nukes, didn't they?
              Obama and the Pentagon want to diminish ours.

              Progress.

              1. pisean282311 profile image58
                pisean282311posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                @love so bomb north korea ?....

                1. lovemychris profile image82
                  lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this
                  1. pisean282311 profile image58
                    pisean282311posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    thats good news for starters..

                  2. Evan G Rogers profile image82
                    Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    It's funny that you're cheering "talking to other countries" but then immediately get mad at Paul when that's his entire foreign policy.

        2. Evan G Rogers profile image82
          Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Pisean, you don't read news, do you?

          Obama has been astronomically worse that Bush in every respect. I hated Bush with a passion, yet I stand here more angry at Obama than at Bush.

          It would be a waste of time to point out why. I've done it so many times before.

          1. Vladimir Uhri profile image60
            Vladimir Uhriposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Very interesting. So many out of mind US citizens.

          2. couturepopcafe profile image60
            couturepopcafeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Evan - Unfortunately, a problem with many foreigners is that they believe the headlines propaganda. No joke. I recently spoke with a young woman from India who has recently become a citizen. We discussed the election. She said she would vote Democratic. When I asked her why, she said because she believed in Democracy and that is what the Democratic Party stands for. I was speechless.

      2. lovemychris profile image82
        lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, that would be great.

        Maybe it will happen when Paul and Biden go at it in the VP debates.

        Of course, then he will have to explain why he is running with a man who also would have signed the NDAA....

        and he called Gingrich a "chicken-hawk", He says he wants no more wars....

        But then he'd have to explain how he's ok with Romney gunning to attack Iran, and how he never served, nor any of his 5 sons, yet always pushes for neo-con wars.

        He calls Santorum a fake, but Romney is as fake as they come.

        So, if Paul has all these "strong beliefs"...they're really not that strong if he gives ole Mittens a pass, now are they?

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
          Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          It's funny because you think Paul would run as Mitt's VP.

          This would never happen.

          Good call on trying to insult someone on what they MIGHT do in the future.

          I heard that LMC might end up killing a man in an alley. I suppose I should hate you for that.

          1. lovemychris profile image82
            lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            You already said I would watch me mum be killed, as long as a pro-abortion person was doing it....

            Pot meet kettle.

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
              Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              you really don't get points, do you?

        2. Evan G Rogers profile image82
          Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Iraq might have had nuclear weapons, so I guess you support the invasion?

          1. lovemychris profile image82
            lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            No--I never supported that invasion...but Mitt did.

            And Obama didn't.

            1. lone77star profile image91
              lone77starposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              And yet Obama supported invading Libya. Looks like Obama is as much a puppet of the One-Worlders as Bush was.

              When I was young and naive I liked the idea of one world in harmony. I wouldn't put it past the power brokers to have several flavors of puppets sitting in the wings waiting to get elected depending on the current political wind. These guys don't care how many of the 99% they kill. They are a superior race. And one world in harmony looks like Soviet Russia on rocket thrusters with German SS and concentration camps stirred in.

              Gaddafi wanted to start his own gold-based currency and was interested in spreading that idea throughout Africa. That made the Rothschilds and Rockefellers nervous. With their amount of money, it's easy to fake a problem which would elicit American "response."

              Obama is doing a lot of what Hitler did before World War II. And to his fellow Germans, it all sounded so "patriotic."

              1. lovemychris profile image82
                lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                There is no such thing as one nation going after another . They are all entwined.

                And if you think Gadhaffi was a good guy, how much time do you have to surf the net?

                I don't see Obama going around demonizing any specific group of people, or have I missed something?

                Should he ally himself with Zionists, I will agree he is like the Nazis.

                This remains to be seen....1 day and counting.

                http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/03/02 … eak-obama/

                1. couturepopcafe profile image60
                  couturepopcafeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  No such thing as one nation going after another? I don't get your logic on this. Iraq invaded Kuwait unprovoked with the intention of taking it over. Just one example. Unprovoked is the key word.

            2. couturepopcafe profile image60
              couturepopcafeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Umm, sorry, LMC, check the records again. Obama did support it.

              1. lovemychris profile image82
                lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                "Senator Barack Obama yesterday defended his votes on behalf of funding the Iraq war, asserting that he has always made clear that he supports funding for US troops despite his consistent opposition to the war."

                http://www.boston.com/news/nation/artic … q_funding/

                1. EmpressFelicity profile image83
                  EmpressFelicityposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  If I want to know what a person's real opinions are, I always look at what they do, not what they say.

                  Anyone can say "I'm against war, me!" But saying it is meaningless if you're using taxpayers' money to fund yet more war.

                  1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
                    Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Ron Paul: 30 years of consistency

                    Obama: tyrant.

                  2. lovemychris profile image82
                    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Once they're there..what would you suggest?

          2. pisean282311 profile image58
            pisean282311posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            @evan if Iraq had nuclear weapons...USA was not on its list in top 3...first thing they would have done is bomb iran...But bush , tony where proven wrong and it is good that uk is having inquiry for the same...

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
              Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Grammar is important.

            2. couturepopcafe profile image60
              couturepopcafeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              pisean - There's no if. Yes, Iraq had WMDs. The reason W was so sure of this was because the U.S. supplied them to Saddam during the first Iran-Iraq war.

              1. Randy Godwin profile image93
                Randy Godwinposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                And with what sort of WMD's did we supply Sadaam, and how many Iranians did he kill with them and where? 


                                                      http://s1.hubimg.com/u/6186572.jpg

              2. Evan G Rogers profile image82
                Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Iraq had nukes? Please to be proving.

                1. couturepopcafe profile image60
                  couturepopcafeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  WMDs - not nukes. "Iran began a series of offensives, which proved successful enough to cause Iraq to resort to the use of chemical weapons (see poison gas), a tactic reviled by the international community."

                  Read more: Iran-Iraq War — Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A … z1ojJzEyrm

                  "The Iraqi bioweapons program that President Bush wants to eradicate got its start with help from Uncle Sam two decades ago, according to government records that are getting new scrutiny in light of the discussion of war against Iraq.

                  The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention sent samples directly to several Iraqi sites that U.N. weapons inspectors determined were part of Saddam Hussein’s biological weapons program, CDC and congressional records from the early 1990s show. Iraq had ordered the samples, saying it needed them for legitimate medical research".

                  http://www.fff.org/comment/com0406g.asp

      3. Paul Wingert profile image79
        Paul Wingertposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Ole Ron could barely hold his own with an  interview with Pierse Morgan on CNN. Ron Paul is 76 years old! Is he really electable?

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
          Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I don't know which interview you're talking about, but Morgan couldn't stop talking over Paul in the interview a few months ago (well, actually, Piers did shut up when Paul owned him on the Iran war question. That was hilarious)

          And in the one out just yesterday, Paul owned him again. Piers' questions were almost entirely "which OTHER Republican do you like?", and finally Ron Paul just said that the other candidates should be trying to get into his cabinet.

          I really have no idea what you're talking about.

          1. Paul Wingert profile image79
            Paul Wingertposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Ron Paul is NOT going to be elected. Deal with it.

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
              Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Sorry that Obama signed NDAA - that must've chewed at your soul.

        2. couturepopcafe profile image60
          couturepopcafeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Paul - Different perspectives: I thought he held his own very well in that interview. 76? Think Reagan.

          1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
            Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Paul has only changed his stance on one issue: the death penalty. He was pro, now he's against.

        3. Vladimir Uhri profile image60
          Vladimir Uhriposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Well. If president will not to try run all shows, anyone can be president.  There are only two function: defend our country from enemy and Constitution (love country and common sense). President should have good advisers in military.

          1. couturepopcafe profile image60
            couturepopcafeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Bingo.

  7. profile image0
    Peelander Gallyposted 5 years ago

    He's never going to get elected. You and all the other guys on the street corner cheering at passing traffic with Paul 2012 signs are going to have to deal with that eventually. Even after he dies, which probably won't be too long from now, I wouldn't be surprised to see a bunch of upper middle class yuppie spawn college kids holding up "Zombie Paul 20--" signs.

    1. Jed Fisher profile image86
      Jed Fisherposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Maybe Ron Paul seemed crazy back in the day, when the legal age for everything was 18, when there were no seatbelt laws, when the police--even if they had a search warrant--had to knock first and indentify themselves before bursting into a home, when having up to an ounce of weed didn’t break any federal laws…when getting on an airplane wasn’t a personally humiliating experience, when we had a great deal of personal liberty, and privacy. But now?
      Ron Paul ’12!

      1. profile image0
        Peelander Gallyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        All of those things with the exception of seatbelt laws are pretty superfluous, don't you think?

        1. Jed Fisher profile image86
          Jed Fisherposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          It’s all a matter of just how much supervision the Gub’ment should provide its private citizens.
          I’ve observed the slow creep of the loss of personal liberties not only in America, but Europe and Asia as well. I can spot the signs and know the end-state, as surly as a naturalist can describe the way a lake becomes a marsh and then a meadow and finally a forest. In South Korea I saw a wild and free people devolve into something akin to Japan, where to get a job opening a hotel door requires a master’s in mechanical engineering and PhDs drive taxi cabs, where the majority of people under the age of forty still live with their parents in high rise apartments. I see America has already become like Germany was twenty years ago, and Germany is now the hideous dystopia I thought it would never become. It’s bad and I’ve seen it and perhaps it’s inevitable. When the Berlin Wall came down, our freedoms fell with it. The “War on Men’s Freedom” draws to a close with it now being a felony to glance at cleavage. Now the “War on Women’s Freedom” begins, the current debate over reproductive rights being the first stage of the first battle. It’ll get worse and a decade from now women will be standing around in Westernized burka-like outfits wondering where their freedoms went.
          Perhaps a few will remember some white-haired Senator who ran for President, some little old man from Texas who warned them this would happen. G’luck!

          1. couturepopcafe profile image60
            couturepopcafeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I don't know, burkas don't sound too bad. Saves a lot on wardrobe decisions, cosmetics, bad hair days, and all those learing eyes on my precious 36-26-37. As long as they come in colors. lol

        2. Evan G Rogers profile image82
          Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Did you just say that "the drug war" and "search warrants" are superfluous?

          And then you went on to say that they are LESS superfluous than seatbelt laws?

          Wow, no wonder you don't like Paul.

          Have you even HEARD of the Constitution?

          1. profile image0
            Peelander Gallyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            @Jed Fisher
            I can't say I follow you. Japan's government is obviously in the toilet right now and hikkikomori, or Internet-obsessed social recluses who never move out, are becoming a serious problem for society, but Japan is a great place to live. Their culture is different and can be very oppressive, their educational system and corporate structures are extremely competitive, but you can't really liken those things to an increasing loss of personal liberty in the States. They don't have a whole lot to do with each other. If you think socialising healthcare is the first step toward fascism then I might as well point out that Japan's healthcare system is light years ahead of ours, and like that of Denmark, its only problem is how it's going to take such excellent care of an aging populace. One of my Japanese professors flew to Japan and visited family across the country before having some dental work done that would have cost more to do here by itself than it did over there, plus her entire trip. When no one can afford to go to the doctor why would our freedom of choice over insurance even matter?

            And the "hideous dystopia" you describe is the most robust industrial economy in the EU, which it is basically propping it up. Angela Merkel has a doctorate in chemistry and the average German is much better educated than the average American will *ever* be at the rate we're going, owing to a competitive and technologically advanced economy of said well-educated professionals whose educations were funded by the state.

            And there shouldn't be a debate over reproductive rights going on in a first world nation. Until the psychos actually take the reigns I certainly wouldn't take what all the Evangelical Christian talking head politicians are saying seriously; there's no logical basis to any of the morally corrupt platforms they attempt to hook voters with and they're simply out of meaningful things to say. Saying there's a serious debate over reproductive rights going on right now is kind of like saying there's a debate about whether or not the activities of humans are affecting the climate. The only people debating are paid lobbyists.

            @Evan G Rogers
            Actually I didn't. If you have 28 grams + of weed on you it's your own damn fault - that's either felony intent to distribute or you seriously need to cut down. Even if you're about to blow the roof off some party, at least divvy it up between a bunch of people so none of you has the illegal amount on you. Not that I condone smoking it in the first place, I think it makes people slow, stupid and apathetic.

            And if the police kick your door in there's probably a good reason for it. Obviously they need a warrant, that's a given. Sometimes cops are total jerks and get too trigger happy, but chances are they feel that they need the element of surprise because their lives would be in greater danger without it. Anything less would result in an expensive lawsuit.

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
              Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              It's your own fault for carrying your own property?

              It's OK for a cop to bust down your door for growing a plant?

              Yeah, no wonder you don't like Paul.

              The drug wars have done nothing but expand government tyranny, put non-violent minorities in jail, and forced normally peaceful people to be violent.

              1. profile image0
                Peelander Gallyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Hey, I think that weed should be legalised (everyone smokes it anyway), regulated and taxed by the government and so should prostitution. Drug cartels, pimps and other degenerates wouldn't be able to make a living off those things anymore, they'd be much safer because of health regulations and the government would make a ton of money. I've heard (and witnessed once in court) terrible stories of entrapment related to both that ruined peoples' lives for no reason. But if you want to act like a badass and carry a couple of kilos of weed hidden in one of the door panels in your car and go to prison, then whatever. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime, as the saying goes.

                We live in a country founded on and still mostly driven by oppressive Puritanical ideals, so the legalisation of those things is not going to happen any time in the foreseeable future.  That's why so many sexual practices here are considered taboo and everyone wears T-shirts, jeans and sneakers, too; there's a subconscious undercurrent of uniformity and wanting to appear normal that permeates American society.

                1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
                  Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Oohh, OK!

                  So, everything should be legal, it's just that you can't have a lot of it on you...

                  Your arguments are as flawed as the ideology supporting them. Utilitarianism leads to fascism.

                  1. profile image0
                    Peelander Gallyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    I just love the classic your-arguments-are-flawed-and-ignorant default response. Legality isn't subjective. You can think the law doesn't apply to you all you want, but unless you go somewhere else with laws that suit you better, you're still going to have to avoid the authorities if you don't want to get caught doing something illegal and face the consequences when they do find out about it. If you think those consequences and laws are unreasonable then work to change them, move or reconsider your ideology.

                2. couturepopcafe profile image60
                  couturepopcafeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Uh, no, PG. not everyone smokes.

                  1. profile image0
                    Peelander Gallyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    That's one of those exaggerations used as a figure of speech; tons of people do, it's completely common and mostly accepted, especially among people under 30.

    2. Evan G Rogers profile image82
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I bet you complain about gas prices being the result of corporate greed.

  8. daskittlez69 profile image79
    daskittlez69posted 5 years ago

    Ron Paul all of the way!!!

  9. lone77star profile image91
    lone77starposted 5 years ago

    I have to admit, I was a real sap for Obama. A sweet talking "pretty face," that guy. The difference between Ron Paul and every (every!) other candidate is like night and day. Dr. Paul isn't perfect (and who is?), but he's the only "presidential" guy out there.

    A Veritable Rock of Gibraltar

    Mitt Romney really does have a "pretty face," but he has corporate greed written all over his past. He's not as smooth a talker as some (blunders), but he'd like to pull more wool over everyone else's eyes.

    Flip-floppers reveal their character by their actions. They're weak when it comes to moral conviction.

    And a president who swears to uphold the constitution and then proceeds to trample it (Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, etc), shouldn't be president. That's another indication of character -- untrustworthy!

    Dr. Paul is consistent, knowledgeable, trustworthy and sane!

    Government As Usual?

    Look at the state of the economy! If I were making $120,000/year, spending $350,000/year, towing a debt of $15,000,000 and paying only $20,000/year on that debt, I'd be guilty of fiscal mismanagement of the most egregious kind.

    If I hired some thugs to bomb the commercial center of my city, planted some evidence to show that it was some disgruntled ethnic group, then had laws passed to round up everyone of that ethnic background, strip them of their property and then pocket their wealth, you'd think that would be criminal. But that's what the US has been doing. Rockefellers dream up 9/11, hire some thugs, to hire some others, to hire some fanatics, and goodie -- carte blanche going into Iraq and Afghanistan for as long as our greedy selves want to milk those nations.

    All of the crazy, bad and criminal acts of the USA over the past few decades have been ploys to make the super rich even richer, and to put into place restrictions which would allow for the complete disregard of the Constitution. Hitler made it sound good. Bush and Obama make it sound good enough to get elected.

    The Need for Steady Nerves and Resolve

    The bad guys will win so long as we react to their stimuli. We need to guard against divisiveness (us versus them) and knee-jerk reaction (9/11 and WMD's to attack Iraq). Valerie Plame and her husband were victims of the greedy juggernaut. What the White House did and then covered up was an outrage, but we must not be outraged -- because wrath belongs to the Lord.

    Ron Paul has the "huevos" to stand tough on his principles. He's a bigger man than any of those greedy wimps. He won't bend to whim or lobbyist (corporate, super-rich) pressure. Those other guys in the shadows are the same ones who attempted to have Jackson assassinated for not renewing the second Rothschild central bank. I wouldn't doubt if they were behind the Civil War and Lincoln's assassination. Wilson saw the writing on the wall and bent with the pressure to establish, once and for all the Rothschild/Rockefeller central bank. All of our tax dollars go to a private bank.

    Ending the Fed

    All of our tax dollars go to a private bank! No need to get upset about the 1% getting richer off of your sweat under the guise of "patriotic duty." Simply forgive them, elect Ron Paul and kiss the private "Fed" bye-bye. Then help to protect our new president from the inevitable attacks. Jackson survived his assassination attempt because both guns jammed. Richard Lawrence was clearly crazy, but Lawrence was led to believe (by whom?) that with the president out of the way money would be more plentiful -- just the carrot the Rothschilds wanted dangled.

    Ron Paul 2012

    Ron Paul in 2012. The bad guys seemed destined for Armageddon, but with Dr. Paul as president, we can forestall that catastrophe a little while longer.

  10. lovemychris profile image82
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    "Ron Paul in 2012. The bad guys seemed destined for Armageddon, but with Dr. Paul as president, we can forestall that catastrophe a little while longer."

    Are you kidding?

    He's as much a part of it as the rest of them....but HE targets females for armeggedon.

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      ... killing babies isn't armaggedon...

  11. lovemychris profile image82
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    Some food for thought:

    "Ron Paul’s SuperPAC, “Endorse Liberty,” is headquartered in Mitt Romney’s backyard: Salt Lake City, Utah.

    Moreover, the SuperPAC’s staff and founders include several former Romney supporters and Huntsman supporters. And one of the founding principals of Endorse Liberty, Ladd Christensen, is something of an oligarch in Utah: Christensen is the longtime business partner of John Huntsman’s billionaire dad. They founded Huntsman Chemicals together, as well as Hunstman-Christensen."

    http://exiledonline.com/why-is-ron-paul … -backyard/

    Tweet by Rosanne Barr:

    "limbaugh removed from armed forces radio-this is huge-now bain capital/romneys/mormons/XE no longer can dictate foreign policy so easily"

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      romney and Paul aren't in cahoots. Give it up.

      1. lovemychris profile image82
        lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        That remains to be seen.

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
          Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          No, it really doesn't. But you can keep BELIEVING it does.

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOxt3cMTDZE

          1. lovemychris profile image82
            lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            We'll see what happens after Mitt buys errrrr, wins the nomination.

            Remember that Mitt is for ndaa and wants to bomb Iran...

            Negotiable Virtue is DC's middle name.

    2. couturepopcafe profile image60
      couturepopcafeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Who care about Barr or Limbaugh. It's still interesting to note that Paul has received more campaign contributions from military personnel than all other candidates combined including BO.

      Now that's huge. Regardless of all other issues, foreign policy is one of the U.S.'s biggest.

  12. steveamy profile image61
    steveamyposted 5 years ago

    he will never be nominated..............

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      ...................... deep ..........................

      ............
      ...




      ..............................................................................................

      1. steveamy profile image61
        steveamyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        you are losing it Evan....????

  13. Paul Wingert profile image79
    Paul Wingertposted 5 years ago

    So far Ron Paul doesn't look so electable. How many deligates does he have? 42? Oh yeah, he's kicking ass! lol

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      It's funny that you think he has 42 delegates.

  14. lovemychris profile image82
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    It can NEVER be left up to the states. Women deserve their freedom, world wide!

    Here's what one state is doing:


    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/26/us/po … wanted=all


    I'm sorry..this is something out of Josef Mengele.

    1. EmpressFelicity profile image83
      EmpressFelicityposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I wouldn't go as far as saying Josef Mengele, but I would definitely say it's highly disturbing.

  15. profile image69
    independentmindedposted 5 years ago

    Ron Paul is a scary guy.  He's against a woman's right to choose, as well as being very racist and homophobic.

 
working