Ron Paul Tea Party today

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='BlackJesus' post='611499' date='Dec 19 2007, 03:22 PM'][size=3][/size]


[b][color="#0000FF"]Things the left [size=4]agrees[/size] with him on .... [/color]

[color="#0000FF"]- Get rid of NAFTA, CAFTA, etc
- Scrap the CIA and their death squads
- Close down foriegn military bases and end the empire [/color]
- Legalize pot
[color="#0000FF"]- Get out of Iraq
- Quit attacking Arabs for Oil & Israel
- Stop torturing people
- Restore Habeus Corpus
- Quit spying on Americans
- Balance the Budget[/color]




[color="#FF0000"]What the Left [size=4]doesn't agree[/size] with him on ....[/color]

- Scrapping the minimum wage
[color="#008000"]- Dumping the IRS
- Scrapping Dept of Education, Interior, etc etc [/color]
- Lowering taxes for rich fucks
[color="#0000FF"]- His Pro Life stance on Abortion[/color] (however he isnt nessasarly "pro life" as I understand it, he thinks its best left to the states)
[color="#008000"]- His embrace of "Free Market" Capitalism [/color]
- His stance on Gun Control
- [color="#008000"]His desire to scrap the U.N.[/color]
- His stance on the Border
[color="#0000FF"]- His embrace of Prayer in schools [/color]
- No health coverage for poor[/b][/quote]


[color="#0000FF"]Agree[/color], [color="#008000"]half agree I dont think that scrapping them is a good idea, but slimming down and making them more streamlined is a very very good idea[/color] (in reference to goverment programs)


Also in reference to free market captilism, I think some goverment control is good it keeps the greedy ceo types in check, but too much of it isnt the market does need to be allowed to work.

[LudwigVan Kubrick]

- Get rid of NAFTA, CAFTA, etc -[b] YES[/b]
- Scrap the CIA and their death squads -[b] YES[/b]
- Close down foriegn military bases and end the empire [b]YES[/b]
- Legalize pot- [b]well, stop the wasteful and unwinnable "war on drugs," including pot, YES[/b]- Get out of Iraq - YES
- Quit attacking Arabs for Oil & Israel - [b]YES[/b]- Stop torturing people - YES
- Restore Habeus Corpus - [b]Haaaarevey Birdman YES[/b]
- Quit spying on Americans - [b]YES[/b]
- Balance the Budget -[b] YES[/b]


- Scrapping the minimum wage -[b]YES[/b]
- Dumping the IRS -[b]YES[/b]
- Scrapping Dept of Education, Interior, etc etc -[b]YES[/b]
- Lowering taxes for rich fucks - [b]Well, cut spending, therefore lower taxes for all, so, YES[/b]
- His Pro Life stance on Abortion (however he isnt nessasarly "pro life" as I understand it, he thinks its best left to the states) - [b]he is pro life, but doesn't matter because he'd leave it to the states, so YES[/b]
- His embrace of "Free Market" Capitalism - [b]YES[/b]
- His stance on Gun Control - [b]I loves my gun. I loves my 2nd ammendment. YES[/b]
- His desire to scrap the U.N. - [b]YES YES[/b]
- His stance on the Border - [b]Lock it down. There will be no free piñata this year.[/b]
- His embrace of Prayer in schools - [b]church-----------------state YES[/b]
- No health coverage for poor - [b]no free handouts. Earn your own keep. YES[/b]

Seriously, unless someone has an ulterior motive, how can anyone not support this platform?

[bengalrick]

conservatives see:

get out of iraq asap: NO!!!!!


liberals see:

strong support for capitalism: NO!!!!


if there was a real chance of paul getting the republican nod, many of the ron paul people would run away... but since there is almost no chance of them having to make the decision to vote for him or a democrat, it is easy to say "yeah, i like ron paul"...

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='bengalrick' post='611540' date='Dec 19 2007, 04:29 PM'][s]conservatives[/s]Neo-cons see:

get out of iraq asap: NO!!!!!


liberals see:

strong support for capitalism: NO!!!!


if there was a real chance of paul getting the republican nod, many of the ron paul people would run away... but since there is almost no chance of them having to make the decision to vote for him or a democrat, it is easy to say "yeah, i like ron paul"...[/quote]


fixed it for you

(and no chance would people who support him now run from it...also I think the only reason he dosent have a "chance" is because people tell you so, only the unthinking person would follow that line of logic)

[SINcinnati513]

[quote name='Jamie_B' post='611542' date='Dec 19 2007, 04:31 PM']fixed it for you

(and no chance would people who support him now run from it...also I think the only reason he dosent have a "chance" is because people tell you so, only the unthinking person would follow that line of logic)[/quote]

I agree with your assessment. People always tell me how they like him but he doesn't have a chance. And I always reply,"isn't it up to us?" Imagine if all the people that said he doesn't have a chance said that he does have a chance. It's kind of like the power of positive thinking. Or instead of just accepting that he doesn't have a chance, do something. Talk to your friends, neighbors, family. I wear a Ron Paul sticker at work everyday and there are always customers asking me questions because they have never even heard of him. That's when I bust out my Ron Paul fliers and thank them for asking. Lately a lot of people have been asking me for bumper stickers. It's been a pleasant surprise how many people I've gotten on the Ron Paul bandwagon just from me wearing a sticker everyday.

[bengalrick]

[quote name='Jamie_B' post='611542' date='Dec 19 2007, 04:31 PM']fixed it for you

(and no chance would people who support him now run from it...also I think the only reason he dosent have a "chance" is because people tell you so, only the unthinking person would follow that line of logic)[/quote]

see i guess i am somehow a neo con that doesn't think for himself?

he has more money than any other candidate and has the strongest following among internet users, yet he has about 8% of the support... considering the hate of the msm on both sides of the isle and his financial support, according to your theory he should be winning hands down... but he's not...

guess why??? exactly what i said above.... its called polarization and if you don't see that, then you are blind as a bat...

[LudwigVan Kubrick]

[quote name='bengalrick' post='611553' date='Dec 19 2007, 05:03 PM']see i guess i am somehow a neo con that doesn't think for himself?

he has more money than any other candidate and has the strongest following among internet users, yet he has about 8% of the support...[/quote]

From Paul's views on banking, health care, government programs, and the war in Iraq, he is the last person that MSM wants to see elected.

Why?

Because of the people that own the MainStreamMedia. All the cuts Paul is talking about. Thats their cash cows! So they try all the usual tactics.
[b]1. Imply hopelessness [/b]- "what will you do when you don't win?" Do any other candidates get asked this?
[b]2. Ignore [/b]- Paul breaks the record for daily fundraising. What was the top story of the day? Leibermann endorses McCain. WTF?!?! And when they do mention him, "Paul broke the record for online fundraising." Online? That is just misleading and you and I both know what they are implying.
[b]3. Ridicule[/b] - Throw in words like conspiracy any chance you get. Paint him as a fringe candidate. Keep telling everyone he is "low in the polls and will polarize the nation."

That is most of the media's M.O. with Ron Paul. With all the resources available, it has never been more obvious that the major media outlets of this country are and have for quite some time now, dictated to us who our choices will be, by providing the choices they want us to choose from. Sort of a screening process, if you will.

Ask yourself, is a candidate ahead in the polls and therefore receiving more news coverage, or is it the other way around? Chicken or the egg, my good man.

I want you to agree with Ron Paul's platform. But should you disagree with what he says, please take the effort to turn the TV off and seek out multiple sources on your own to, gasp, form your own opinion based on what you have found, NOT what you have been told.


[quote]considering the hate of the msm on both sides of the isle and his financial support, according to your theory he should be winning hands down... but he's not...[/quote]

How do you figure? Left-leaning networks hate him because he is the only anti-war republican, and since 70 percent of the country wants out of the war, Paul would be the toughest republican for the democrats to beat BY FAR.
Right-leaning networks hate him because he goes against the "neo-conservative nation building - intrusive big government" mindset that has plagued the party since even Clinton was in office.


[quote]guess why??? exactly what i said above.... its called polarization and if you don't see that, then you are blind as a bat...[/quote]

Please, in the name of all things holy, TURN YOUR TV OFF, and get your news from a few different sources at least before you just quote whatever "news" program you watched last.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='bengalrick' post='611553' date='Dec 19 2007, 05:03 PM']see i guess i am somehow a neo con that doesn't think for himself?

he has more money than any other candidate and has the strongest following among internet users, yet he has about 8% of the support... considering the hate of the msm on both sides of the isle and his financial support, according to your theory he should be winning hands down... but he's not...

guess why??? exactly what i said above.... its called polarization and if you don't see that, then you are blind as a bat...[/quote]


I would label you a neo-con yes (or at least pro-iraq war). I do think you think for yourself, but I think believing he has no chance is silly, and premature EVERY analyist has said the Repbulican field is fairly open. Did Huckabee have "no chance" just a month ago?

Edit: When I say unthinking I mean those who hear "he has no chance" and thus dont look deeper and wolnt concider voting for him even if they did dig deeper because they were told or for some reason think "he has no chance". I aboultly dont agree he is polorizing, because his views streach accross party lines you can see both sides agree with some of his ideas. You will find no canidate everyone agrees with.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='LudwigVan Kubrick' post='611579' date='Dec 19 2007, 06:00 PM']From Paul's views on banking, health care, government programs, and the war in Iraq, he is the last person that MSM wants to see elected.

Why?

Because of the people that own the MainStreamMedia. All the cuts Paul is talking about. Thats their cash cows! So they try all the usual tactics.
[b]1. Imply hopelessness [/b]- "what will you do when you don't win?" Do any other candidates get asked this?
[b]2. Ignore [/b]- Paul breaks the record for daily fundraising. What was the top story of the day? Leibermann endorses McCain. WTF?!?! And when they do mention him, "Paul broke the record for online fundraising." Online? That is just misleading and you and I both know what they are implying.
[b]3. Ridicule[/b] - Throw in words like conspiracy any chance you get. Paint him as a fringe candidate. Keep telling everyone he is "low in the polls and will polarize the nation."

That is most of the media's M.O. with Ron Paul. With all the resources available, it has never been more obvious that the major media outlets of this country are and have for quite some time now, dictated to us who our choices will be, by providing the choices they want us to choose from. Sort of a screening process, if you will.

Ask yourself, is a candidate ahead in the polls and therefore receiving more news coverage, or is it the other way around? Chicken or the egg, my good man.

I want you to agree with Ron Paul's platform. But should you disagree with what he says, please take the effort to turn the TV off and seek out multiple sources on your own to, gasp, form your own opinion based on what you have found, NOT what you have been told.




How do you figure? Left-leaning networks hate him because he is the only anti-war republican, and since 70 percent of the country wants out of the war, Paul would be the toughest republican for the democrats to beat BY FAR.
Right-leaning networks hate him because he goes against the "neo-conservative nation building - intrusive big government" mindset that has plagued the party since even Clinton was in office.




Please, in the name of all things holy, TURN YOUR TV OFF, and get your news from a few different sources at least before you just quote whatever "news" program you watched last.[/quote]


As much as I dont agree with a good majortiy of what you say in the Bengals forum, its refreshing to be able to agree with you here.

[LudwigVan Kubrick]

[quote name='Jamie_B' post='611597' date='Dec 19 2007, 06:44 PM']As much as I dont agree with a good majortiy of what you say in the Bengals forum, its refreshing to be able to agree with you here.[/quote]

I apply the same logic and reasoning to both subject matters, but I think your faith is in that forum and your reasoning is in this one.

Not a thing wrong with that either. Faith has no place in politics, and, perhaps reason has no place in rooting for our favorite team.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='LudwigVan Kubrick' post='611615' date='Dec 19 2007, 07:24 PM']I apply the same logic and reasoning to both subject matters, but I think your faith is in that forum and your reasoning is in this one. [/quote]


Not really, I use reasoning in that too, just not reasoning you agree with.

[LudwigVan Kubrick]

[quote name='Jamie_B' post='611616' date='Dec 19 2007, 07:25 PM']Not really, I use reasoning in that too, just not reasoning you agree with.[/quote]


Very true, many times. Would be pretty dull if everyone agreed all the time, that's for sure.

[bengalrick]

[quote name='Jamie_B' post='611596' date='Dec 19 2007, 06:40 PM']I would label you a neo-con yes (or at least pro-iraq war). I do think you think for yourself, but I think believing he has no chance is silly, and premature EVERY analyist has said the Repbulican field is fairly open. Did Huckabee have "no chance" just a month ago?

Edit: When I say unthinking I mean those who hear "he has no chance" and thus dont look deeper and wolnt concider voting for him even if they did dig deeper because they were told or for some reason think "he has no chance". I aboultly dont agree he is polorizing, because his views streach accross party lines you can see both sides agree with some of his ideas. You will find no canidate everyone agrees with.[/quote]

huckabee is a baptist minister during the end of the social conservative revolution...

paul is an anti war libetarian during a time when the war is seemingly going better than it has in a while...

i just don't see paul catching fire, but i would vote for him and have considered him as the rep candidate... not that my vote matters for shit in KY

[SINcinnati513]

`

I swear they ask him the dumbest shit.
They finally give him coverage and try to bash him.

[steggyD]

That's it! I'm switching my candidate now! I want warm and fuzzy Christmas ads!

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='bengalrick' post='611678' date='Dec 19 2007, 11:14 PM'][color="#FF0000"]huckabee is a baptist minister during the end of the social conservative revolution...[/color]

paul is an anti war libetarian during a time when the war is seemingly going better than it has in a while...

i just don't see paul catching fire, but i would vote for him and have considered him as the rep candidate... not that my vote matters for shit in KY [/quote]


I would never assume an end to that, if so Giuliani will win (even if he does its likely because social conservatives approve of his support for israel...though I concider myself a social conservitive and think the policy towards israel needs to change). The "church voters" are likely the best and most orginized voters in terms of their issues and will likley never go away, huckabee would have never risen if there wasnt concern about the other "front runners". Frankly I could very well see him end up taking the whole thing. Then you have the dems who if Huckabe won could put up Obama (who has expressed his faith in matters) and the argument between left leaning faith voters and right leaning faith voters would become very very interesting.

[bengalrick]

you might be right about the social revolution not being over yet...

anyway, if huckabee pulls it off, i will almost guarentee it will be a democrat as our president, unless its hillary that runs against him... he is too much like bush, and dems can run an extremely effective campagn of "anti bush"...

i think that rudi's support is mainly b/c everyone thinks he can beat hillary hands down... that was part of my original thinking, but i have since wisened up and would not like to see rudi as president... i would like to see huckabee, but i don't think he has a chance in the election... i am still a fan of mccain, but don't see him doing much unless he catches fire soon... thompson has no chance in hell... paul i like, but don't think he has a major chance b/c of the circumstances... if the war was in the same stage as last year, he would be the one surging right now though... i don't know how romney is still in this, but he has a remote chance if he wins iowa... i like him alright, but he is third or fourth on my list of who i want as a rep... democrat side, i don't see much hope this year of voting that way yet... but i am pulling for obama...

it seems we have the douche vs. the shit-sandwich again....

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='bengalrick' post='611850' date='Dec 20 2007, 12:56 PM']if huckabee pulls it off, i will almost guarentee it will be a democrat as our president, unless its hillary that runs against him... he is too much like bush, and dems can run an extremely effective campagn of "anti bush"...

i think that rudi's support is mainly b/c everyone thinks he can beat hillary hands down... that was part of my original thinking, but i have since wisened up and would not like to see rudi as president... i would like to see huckabee, but i don't think he has a chance in the election... i am still a fan of mccain, but don't see him doing much unless he catches fire soon... thompson has no chance in hell... paul i like, but don't think he has a major chance b/c of the circumstances... if the war was in the same stage as last year, he would be the one surging right now though... i don't know how romney is still in this, but he has a remote chance if he wins iowa...

it seems we have the douche vs. the shit-sandwich again.... [/quote]


except for Paul they all are Bush part duex.

The supposed progress of the war hasnt changed the 70% who now disagree with it either. If your anti-war (and 70% seem to be) and want to come home soon you have 2 choices .. Paul or Obama.

[bengalrick]

[quote name='Jamie_B' post='611851' date='Dec 20 2007, 12:59 PM']except for Paul they all are Bush part duex.

The supposed progress of the war hasnt changed the 70% who now disagree with it either. If your anti-war (and 70% seem to be) and want to come home soon you have 2 choices .. Paul or Obama.[/quote]

[url="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/the_war_in_iraq/war_in_iraq_toplines/toplines_iraq_troop_withdrawal_december_11_12_2007"]click here[/url]

that isn't what people want though... you assume that people that are against the war all want them to come home asap... the truth is:

[i][b]1* When it comes to the War in Iraq, should the United States withdraw all combat troops immediately, bring the combat troops home within a year, or stay until the mission is completed?[/b]


25% Withdraw all combat troops immediately

38% Bring combat troops home within a year

33% Stay until the mission is complete

4% Not sure[/i]

Now that things are going better though, the numbers are steadily rising as far as how many people want our guys back within a year (i think i would be included in that number, as long as the status quo is maintained)

[url="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/the_war_in_iraq/iraq_troop_withdrawal"]click here[/url]

[i]A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 63% of Americans would like to see U.S. troops brought home from Iraq within a year. That’s up from 57% a week ago and 59% two weeks ago. Over the last fourteen weeks, the number wanting troops home within a year has ranged from a low of 57% to a high of 64%.

A separate survey found that confidence in the overall War on Terror has increased over the past month. Forty-seven percent (47%) of voters nationwide believe the U.S. and its allies are winning the War on Terror. That’s near the highest level of confidence expressed during President Bush’s second term in office.

Eighty-three percent (83%) of Democrats want the troops to come home within a year. Fifty-five percent (55%) of Republicans believe the troops should remain until the mission is complete and 39% want them home within a year. [/i]

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='bengalrick' post='611854' date='Dec 20 2007, 01:06 PM'][url="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/the_war_in_iraq/war_in_iraq_toplines/toplines_iraq_troop_withdrawal_december_11_12_2007"]click here[/url]

that isn't what people want though... you assume that people that are against the war all want them to come home asap... the truth is:

[i][b]1* When it comes to the War in Iraq, should the United States withdraw all combat troops immediately, bring the combat troops home within a year, or stay until the mission is completed?[/b]


25% Withdraw all combat troops immediately

38% Bring combat troops home within a year

33% Stay until the mission is complete

4% Not sure[/i]

Now that things are going better though, the numbers are steadily rising as far as how many people want our guys back within a year (i think i would be included in that number, as long as the status quo is maintained)

[url="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/the_war_in_iraq/iraq_troop_withdrawal"]click here[/url]

[i][color="#FF0000"]A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 63% of Americans would like to see U.S. troops brought home from Iraq within a year. That’s up from 57% a week ago and 59% two weeks ago. Over the last fourteen weeks, the number wanting troops home within a year has ranged from a low of 57% to a high of 64%.[/color]

A separate survey found that confidence in the overall War on Terror has increased over the past month. Forty-seven percent (47%) of voters nationwide believe the U.S. and its allies are winning the War on Terror. That’s near the highest level of confidence expressed during President Bush’s second term in office.

Eighty-three percent (83%) of Democrats want the troops to come home within a year. Fifty-five percent (55%) of Republicans believe the troops should remain until the mission is complete and 39% want them home within a year. [/i][/quote]


It keeps going up, what do you think that means? I'd go out on a limb that most realize you cant bring them all home immidately not because they dont want to but because they know it has saftey issues for the troops. Even Paul has said you bring them home immidatly but with a safe time frame.

To your 1st percentages I'd say combine the 25 and 38 because they want them home but have difference of opinions on the best and saftest way to bring them home. Only your 33% want to say.

[bengalrick]

[quote name='Jamie_B' post='611858' date='Dec 20 2007, 01:40 PM']It keeps going up, what do you think that means? I'd go out on a limb that most realize you cant bring them all home immidately not because they dont want to but because they know it has saftey issues for the troops. Even Paul has said you bring them home immidatly but with a safe time frame.

To your 1st percentages I'd say combine the 25 and 38 because they want them home but have difference of opinions on the best and saftest way to bring them home. Only your 33% want to say.[/quote]

i think that the number of people that literally want us to be able to bring them home is around 99% or so... so the better things go, the more people want to bring them home assuming things keep getting better... just my theory though...

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='bengalrick' post='611872' date='Dec 20 2007, 02:17 PM']i think that the number of people that literally want us to be able to bring them home is around 99% or so... so the better things go, the more people want to bring them home assuming things keep getting better... just my theory though...[/quote]


I take the oppisite stance, that people want us to bring home asap safely regardless of the outcome or how things are going. Im not sure why you would think differently things werent going as "well" when the democrats got put into congress. They won on this issue.

[bengalrick]

[quote name='Jamie_B' post='611875' date='Dec 20 2007, 02:22 PM']I take the oppisite stance, that people want us to bring home asap safely regardless of the outcome or how things are going. Im not sure why you would think differently things werent going as "well" when the democrats got put into congress. They won on this issue.[/quote]

democrats won on many issues, and iraq was a part of that... i would say that the biggest reason rep's lost last election is b/c of the ineffectiveness of bush, the fact that rep. voters were not happy w/ their party, and dem's were very unhappy w/ rep rule... iraq played a part, but was only a portion of the reason the democrats took control...

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='bengalrick' post='611880' date='Dec 20 2007, 02:38 PM']democrats won on many issues, and iraq was a part of that... i would say that the biggest reason rep's lost last election is b/c of the ineffectiveness of bush, the fact that rep. voters were not happy w/ their party, and dem's were very unhappy w/ rep rule... iraq played a part, but was only a portion of the reason the democrats took control...[/quote]


I think your letting your support for the war cloud your judgement of it. imo, its pretty simple dems won because people are tired of the war and want us out.

[Homer_Rice]

The only way one of the weak Republican candidates gets elected is if Bloomberg gets in the race as an Independent. Then you have a spoiler situation a la Anderson or Perot. Not that the Dems are so politically astute this time around, more that the current environment is deteriorating fast enough that Bush and the Repubs will get the blame re the economy.

So, from my perspective, the issue is becoming more clear: which candidate is likely to be able to truely lead us out of this mess? They are all compromised by the "system" (even Paul, if in a different way.)

I may support Edwards, and I could wholeheartedly support an Edwards/Dodd ticket. (Nice balance, there.)