This topic is locked from further discussion.
The guy's picking up momentum, I'll give him that. I'll also agree that some of his wild ideas actually interest me and the fact that he seems genuine about protecting our Constitution is something I really admire.
But the guy accepted campaign donations from the KKK. He hasn't denied it, he hasn't given the money back or distanced himself from it. Someone willing to accept money from a group of gigantic @$$hats like the Klan doesn't get my vote.
AnyonebutHillary '08
The KKK is nearly inexistent today. It's probably a number of people you can fit in a classroom, so I don't know why you're making such a big deal about it.
My guess why he accepted it anyway is because you can't confirm they gave him money in hopes he would help the KKK cause, they just straight up gave him money. If Al Qaeda gave Hilary money, then Al Qaeda gave Hilary money. There's not much to it.
anyone but hilary? sexist....PeterPerson
Typical quote when you bash Hillary, "Oh it's so sexist!"
I'd vote for a woman president, just not her. Besides, she's way more manly than John Edwards.:lol:
Well that is one pathetic reason to not vote for a candidate, especially as it isn't even confirmed.....
Do you really expect a guy like him who is a complete underdog to turn away any donations?
anyone but hilary? sexist....PeterPerson
so I have to vote for her because she's a woman?
that's pretty ****ed up.
She's just a puppet president for Bill.
How typical. Another voter who looks for reasons NOT to vote for someone instead of looking for a candidate who most closely represents your stance on important issues. People like you are the reason candidates resort to mud-slinging.
Well Rudy Guliani is worse with money....
Three weeks after 9/11, when the roar of fighter jets still haunted the city's skyline, the emir of gas-rich Qatar, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifah al-Thani, toured Ground Zero. Although a member of the emir's own royal family had harbored the man who would later be identified as the mastermind of the attacks, a man named Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, often referred to in intelligence circles by his initials, "KSM"al-Thani rushed to New York in its aftermath, offering to make a $3 million donation, principally to the families of its victims. Rudy Giuliani, apparently unaware of what the FBI and CIA had long known about Qatari links to Al Qaeda, appeared on CNN with al-Thani that night and vouched for the emir when Larry King asked the mayor: "You are a friend of his, are you not?"
And Rudy still won't renounce ties...
How typical. Another voter who looks for reasons NOT to vote for someone instead of looking for a candidate who most closely represents your stance on important issues. People like you are the reason candidates resort to mud-slinging.
Oleg_Huzwog
Exactly
/thread.
No Politician!!! has a perfect back ground, they're all corrupt. You just have to find one that is the least corrupt.
Ron Paul is a very respectable man who is all about the Consitution. I don't agree with all of his views but he's still a respectable candidate. However, I'm with ya on Clinton. I will never vote for that hypocrite.LikeHaterade
Haterade, love the sig! Fellow member of the Savage Nation?
anyone but hilary? sexist....PeterPerson
So I have to support and vote for Hillary just because she's a woman?
Nice logic there.
Personally, I'd vote for a woman candidate. Just not Hillary. She seems way too much like Bush for my tastes.
I'm with ya on the anyone but Hillary. If her policies were acceptable I would not mind voting for her hell I would'nt mind voting for a Gay Transvestite Dominatrix if I agreed with his/her/it's policies.
Also I am liking this Ron Paul guy with more I am hereing about him and I am sure more people will as well.
And his opponents will more then likely pin the whole "he took money from the KKK" oooo gee he took 20 cents from the KKK because thats about as much as they have. OMG that is just terrible. Give me a break. The KKK is pretty much a non-existant organization now a days.
I'm with ya on the anyone but Hillary. If her policies were acceptable I would not mind voting for her hell I would'nt mind voting for a Gay Transvestite Dominatrix if I agreed with his/her/it's policies.
Also I am liking this Ron Paul guy with more I am hereing about him and I am sure more people will as well.
And his opponents will more then likely pin the whole "he took money from the KKK" oooo gee he took 20 cents from the KKK because thats about as much as they have. OMG that is just terrible. Give me a break. The KKK is pretty much a non-existant organization now a days.
SunofVich
I'd vote for them because of that fact alone :|
Really? The KKK money was your last straw with the guy? Nevermind the fact that he was the author of a bill that would've banned all religious discrimination cases from all US courts, as well as voiding all precedents set by religious cases, or the fact that he's on record as really hating gays, or the fact that he thinks the founding fathers were a bit tipsy when they wrote in the stuff about seperation of church and state in the constitution.
Ron Paul is only libertarian as far as wars and the economy go. There's a reason he's on the republican ticket and not the democratic. The only things keeping him from being a neo-con is the fact that he's anti-war and isn't deadset on forcing every person in America to be a fundamentalist christian.
I'm with ya on the anyone but Hillary. If her policies were acceptable I would not mind voting for her hell I would'nt mind voting for a Gay Transvestite Dominatrix if I agreed with his/her/it's policies.
Also I am liking this Ron Paul guy with more I am hereing about him and I am sure more people will as well.
And his opponents will more then likely pin the whole "he took money from the KKK" oooo gee he took 20 cents from the KKK because thats about as much as they have. OMG that is just terrible. Give me a break. The KKK is pretty much a non-existant organization now a days.
SunofVich
homophobe?
[QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]How typical. Another voter who looks for reasons NOT to vote for someone instead of looking for a candidate who most closely represents your stance on important issues. People like you are the reason candidates resort to mud-slinging.
blooddemon666
Exactly
/thread.
No Politician!!! has a perfect back ground, they're all corrupt. You just have to find one that is the least corrupt.
They all do what is necessary to win elections, but I wouldn't go so far as to say they're all corrupt.
[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]Ron Paul is a very respectable man who is all about the Consitution. I don't agree with all of his views but he's still a respectable candidate. However, I'm with ya on Clinton. I will never vote for that hypocrite.MarineJcksn
Haterade, love the sig! Fellow member of the Savage Nation?
Haha, glad you like it. No I'm afraid not. Fred Thompson has my vote right now. Ron Paul enters debates and will tell everyone his views on the questions that he is asked without fear of all the other candidates ready to talk him down. He holds his own on stage. And after his debates during his questions, he's very polite discussing other candidates and shows that he strongly supports and believes in the Consitution. I'm 20 years old and from the debates and such that I have seen on politics, I've ever seen anyone like Ron Paul IMO. I know I'm talking like he does have my vote now, but I will tell you that I wouldn't think twice about voting for him if he was at the top of my list.
I'm not going to waste my vote on him. I love his ambition and ost of his philosophies and beliefs, but the Repub. party still hates him, and really, they'll eat him alive, and he mostly likely won't be chosen as the head of the party for voting.
I don't know, watching all the repubs just backlash and in an uproaron the guy over forign policy is just kinda ridiculous, but what do I know.
Really? The KKK money was your last straw with the guy? Nevermind the fact that he was the author of a bill that would've banned all religious discrimination cases from all US courts, as well as voiding all precedents set by religious cases, or the fact that he's on record as really hating gays, or the fact that he thinks the founding fathers were a bit tipsy when they wrote in the stuff about seperation of church and state in the constitution.
Ron Paul is only libertarian as far as wars and the economy go. There's a reason he's on the republican ticket and not the democratic. The only things keeping him from being a neo-con is the fact that he's anti-war and isn't deadset on forcing every person in America to be a fundamentalist christian.
gameguy6700
Very good points, I love seeing people that actually tear away the layers of all these politicians and exposes what's underneath. I mentioned the kkk point simply because it was an issue I really find disgusting, but you're right that he's got a lot against him too. But really, all the choices are mediocre this election. These days it's all about picking the lesser of 2 evils and hoping it works out, and that sucks.
Ron Paul isn't going to get the nomination, and I don't know why so many people believe that he will.EboyLOL
They don't realize he suffers from delusions of grandeur.
[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]Really? The KKK money was your last straw with the guy? Nevermind the fact that he was the author of a bill that would've banned all religious discrimination cases from all US courts, as well as voiding all precedents set by religious cases, or the fact that he's on record as really hating gays, or the fact that he thinks the founding fathers were a bit tipsy when they wrote in the stuff about seperation of church and state in the constitution.
Ron Paul is only libertarian as far as wars and the economy go. There's a reason he's on the republican ticket and not the democratic. The only things keeping him from being a neo-con is the fact that he's anti-war and isn't deadset on forcing every person in America to be a fundamentalist christian.
MarineJcksn
Very good points, I love seeing people that actually tear away the layers of all these politicians and exposes what's underneath. I mentioned the kkk point simply because it was an issue I really find disgusting, but you're right that he's got a lot against him too. But really, all the choices are mediocre this election. These days it's all about picking the lesser of 2 evils and hoping it works out, and that sucks.
Ah yes you would call them good points thanks to your bias which has caused you to not even look into these things.
Heres the thing, he is libertarian in all respects. Are you going to discredit the man for having a point of view on issues? You know that despite his view on things he in no way wishes to force them on anyone. He ultimately believes in power to the states on those issues and you would see none of his views on those moral issues slipping into legislation, which is much more than other republicans can say for themselves.
Not only that, but he is the only person in the republican party who plans to end the war and bring our troops back home. He is the only true conservative we have now and with our horrid debt a good conservative is what we need.
He also voted against the patriot act and the war in Iraq, two very important stances IMO. Not only that but he is the only candidate I have seen with any backbone to stand his ground. Anyone else see him refuse to take back his statement that our involvement in Iraq was a major cause of 9/11 even in face of Gulliani demanding he take it back?
He plans on changing our crap foreign policy which is a must. It is time we stand by and let nations tear eachother apart when it is none of our business. We never accomplished much of anything when we got involved and Iraq is just the current example of how much our foreign policy fails.
The man may not be perfect but he is easily the best of the candidates as far as I have seen. I initially was going to go democratic but the current dems in congress have proven themselves to be wishy-washy and not have enough backbone to get anything of importance done. Ron Paul on the other hand will stand and defend his views which is great to see in a candidate as we haven't had anyone with backbone in a WHILE.
[QUOTE="EboyLOL"]Ron Paul isn't going to get the nomination, and I don't know why so many people believe that he will.LukeAF24
They don't realize he suffers from delusions of grandeur.
With all the online hype and the fact that he is the only anti-war republican on theballot in a country where 70% of the citizens are supposedly against the warhe stands a fair chance at getting nominated. The thing that hurts my hopes is the fact that alot of republicans are going to be watching Fox news which seems to hate the guy.....
Personally, fox hating someone is a plus inmy book.....
Ron Paul is trying to get all the help he can get and I would definatly vote for the man. Hilaray isn't bad, I don't like her, but I rather see anyone in office other than Borack Obama. The man was raised in and extremist household and went to an anti-american middle school. The man didn't stand up for the pledge of allegience. I don't know about you but putting the enemy as the leader of your nation isn't very wise.... well thats just my opinion.
Ron Paul is trying to get all the help he can get and I would definatly vote for the man. Hilaray isn't bad, I don't like her, but I rather see anyone in office other than Borack Obama. The man was raised in and extremist household and went to an anti-american middle school. The man didn't stand up for the pledge of allegience. I don't know about you but putting the enemy as the leader of your nation isn't very wise.... well thats just my opinion.
antonius05
Please tell me you're one of the following: 1) too young to vote, 2) too lazy to vote, or 3) convicted felon.
[QUOTE="antonius05"]Ron Paul is trying to get all the help he can get and I would definatly vote for the man. Hilaray isn't bad, I don't like her, but I rather see anyone in office other than Borack Obama. The man was raised in and extremist household and went to an anti-american middle school. The man didn't stand up for the pledge of allegience. I don't know about you but putting the enemy as the leader of your nation isn't very wise.... well thats just my opinion.
Oleg_Huzwog
Please tell me you're one of the following: 1) too young to vote, 2) too lazy to vote, or 3) convicted felon.
All of the above..... but I mean thats just my opinion I respect anyone who wants to make Borack president even though I don't support it. And the whole KKK scenario with Ron Paul might seem kind of messed up but in his shoes, its kind of hard to decline.[QUOTE="MarineJcksn"][QUOTE="gameguy6700"]Really? The KKK money was your last straw with the guy? Nevermind the fact that he was the author of a bill that would've banned all religious discrimination cases from all US courts, as well as voiding all precedents set by religious cases, or the fact that he's on record as really hating gays, or the fact that he thinks the founding fathers were a bit tipsy when they wrote in the stuff about seperation of church and state in the constitution.
Ron Paul is only libertarian as far as wars and the economy go. There's a reason he's on the republican ticket and not the democratic. The only things keeping him from being a neo-con is the fact that he's anti-war and isn't deadset on forcing every person in America to be a fundamentalist christian.
Thechaninator
Very good points, I love seeing people that actually tear away the layers of all these politicians and exposes what's underneath. I mentioned the kkk point simply because it was an issue I really find disgusting, but you're right that he's got a lot against him too. But really, all the choices are mediocre this election. These days it's all about picking the lesser of 2 evils and hoping it works out, and that sucks.
Ah yes you would call them good points thanks to your bias which has caused you to not even look into these things.
Heres the thing, he is libertarian in all respects. Are you going to discredit the man for having a point of view on issues? You know that despite his view on things he in no way wishes to force them on anyone. He ultimately believes in power to the states on those issues and you would see none of his views on those moral issues slipping into legislation, which is much more than other republicans can say for themselves.
Not only that, but he is the only person in the republican party who plans to end the war and bring our troops back home. He is the only true conservative we have now and with our horrid debt a good conservative is what we need.
He also voted against the patriot act and the war in Iraq, two very important stances IMO. Not only that but he is the only candidate I have seen with any backbone to stand his ground. Anyone else see him refuse to take back his statement that our involvement in Iraq was a major cause of 9/11 even in face of Gulliani demanding he take it back?
He plans on changing our crap foreign policy which is a must. It is time we stand by and let nations tear eachother apart when it is none of our business. We never accomplished much of anything when we got involved and Iraq is just the current example of how much our foreign policy fails.
The man may not be perfect but he is easily the best of the candidates as far as I have seen. I initially was going to go democratic but the current dems in congress have proven themselves to be wishy-washy and not have enough backbone to get anything of importance done. Ron Paul on the other hand will stand and defend his views which is great to see in a candidate as we haven't had anyone with backbone in a WHILE.
End the war? Why the heck do people WHO'VE NEVER BEEN THERE cry "oh my god we gotta leave Iraq" so much? I've fought in the war, trust me when I say if you think it's bad now you HAVE NO CLUE how bad it's going to get if we lose over there.
But then again, why win wars? Why honor the 3,895 men and women who gave their lives when we can just leave?
God i miss ronald regan. For all of his faults the man sure would've made sure we took care of business in Iraq by now.
[QUOTE="Thechaninator"][QUOTE="MarineJcksn"][QUOTE="gameguy6700"]Really? The KKK money was your last straw with the guy? Nevermind the fact that he was the author of a bill that would've banned all religious discrimination cases from all US courts, as well as voiding all precedents set by religious cases, or the fact that he's on record as really hating gays, or the fact that he thinks the founding fathers were a bit tipsy when they wrote in the stuff about seperation of church and state in the constitution.
Ron Paul is only libertarian as far as wars and the economy go. There's a reason he's on the republican ticket and not the democratic. The only things keeping him from being a neo-con is the fact that he's anti-war and isn't deadset on forcing every person in America to be a fundamentalist christian.
MarineJcksn
Very good points, I love seeing people that actually tear away the layers of all these politicians and exposes what's underneath. I mentioned the kkk point simply because it was an issue I really find disgusting, but you're right that he's got a lot against him too. But really, all the choices are mediocre this election. These days it's all about picking the lesser of 2 evils and hoping it works out, and that sucks.
Ah yes you would call them good points thanks to your bias which has caused you to not even look into these things.
Heres the thing, he is libertarian in all respects. Are you going to discredit the man for having a point of view on issues? You know that despite his view on things he in no way wishes to force them on anyone. He ultimately believes in power to the states on those issues and you would see none of his views on those moral issues slipping into legislation, which is much more than other republicans can say for themselves.
Not only that, but he is the only person in the republican party who plans to end the war and bring our troops back home. He is the only true conservative we have now and with our horrid debt a good conservative is what we need.
He also voted against the patriot act and the war in Iraq, two very important stances IMO. Not only that but he is the only candidate I have seen with any backbone to stand his ground. Anyone else see him refuse to take back his statement that our involvement in Iraq was a major cause of 9/11 even in face of Gulliani demanding he take it back?
He plans on changing our crap foreign policy which is a must. It is time we stand by and let nations tear eachother apart when it is none of our business. We never accomplished much of anything when we got involved and Iraq is just the current example of how much our foreign policy fails.
The man may not be perfect but he is easily the best of the candidates as far as I have seen. I initially was going to go democratic but the current dems in congress have proven themselves to be wishy-washy and not have enough backbone to get anything of importance done. Ron Paul on the other hand will stand and defend his views which is great to see in a candidate as we haven't had anyone with backbone in a WHILE.
End the war? Why the heck do people WHO'VE NEVER BEEN THERE cry "oh my god we gotta leave Iraq" so much? I've fought in the war, trust me when I say if you think it's bad now you HAVE NO CLUE how bad it's going to get if we lose over there.
But then again, why win wars? Why honor the 3,895 men and women who gave their lives when we can just leave?
God i miss ronald regan. For all of his faults the man sure would've made sure we took care of business in Iraq by now.
You have no idea how bad it's going to get here if we stay there.
Those 3895 men died for nothing more than "some prep school punk's plan to perpetuate retribution." Why make it 3896?
[QUOTE="Thechaninator"][QUOTE="MarineJcksn"][QUOTE="gameguy6700"]Really? The KKK money was your last straw with the guy? Nevermind the fact that he was the author of a bill that would've banned all religious discrimination cases from all US courts, as well as voiding all precedents set by religious cases, or the fact that he's on record as really hating gays, or the fact that he thinks the founding fathers were a bit tipsy when they wrote in the stuff about seperation of church and state in the constitution.
Ron Paul is only libertarian as far as wars and the economy go. There's a reason he's on the republican ticket and not the democratic. The only things keeping him from being a neo-con is the fact that he's anti-war and isn't deadset on forcing every person in America to be a fundamentalist christian.
MarineJcksn
Very good points, I love seeing people that actually tear away the layers of all these politicians and exposes what's underneath. I mentioned the kkk point simply because it was an issue I really find disgusting, but you're right that he's got a lot against him too. But really, all the choices are mediocre this election. These days it's all about picking the lesser of 2 evils and hoping it works out, and that sucks.
Ah yes you would call them good points thanks to your bias which has caused you to not even look into these things.
Heres the thing, he is libertarian in all respects. Are you going to discredit the man for having a point of view on issues? You know that despite his view on things he in no way wishes to force them on anyone. He ultimately believes in power to the states on those issues and you would see none of his views on those moral issues slipping into legislation, which is much more than other republicans can say for themselves.
Not only that, but he is the only person in the republican party who plans to end the war and bring our troops back home. He is the only true conservative we have now and with our horrid debt a good conservative is what we need.
He also voted against the patriot act and the war in Iraq, two very important stances IMO. Not only that but he is the only candidate I have seen with any backbone to stand his ground. Anyone else see him refuse to take back his statement that our involvement in Iraq was a major cause of 9/11 even in face of Gulliani demanding he take it back?
He plans on changing our crap foreign policy which is a must. It is time we stand by and let nations tear eachother apart when it is none of our business. We never accomplished much of anything when we got involved and Iraq is just the current example of how much our foreign policy fails.
The man may not be perfect but he is easily the best of the candidates as far as I have seen. I initially was going to go democratic but the current dems in congress have proven themselves to be wishy-washy and not have enough backbone to get anything of importance done. Ron Paul on the other hand will stand and defend his views which is great to see in a candidate as we haven't had anyone with backbone in a WHILE.
End the war? Why the heck do people WHO'VE NEVER BEEN THERE cry "oh my god we gotta leave Iraq" so much? I've fought in the war, trust me when I say if you think it's bad now you HAVE NO CLUE how bad it's going to get if we lose over there.
But then again, why win wars? Why honor the 3,895 men and women who gave their lives when we can just leave?
God i miss ronald regan. For all of his faults the man sure would've made sure we took care of business in Iraq by now.
Oh yes because we actualy have a chance at winning this war.....
Staying there will only fuel more hatred for us. There is no winning the war. We have to step back and let the country sort itself out, no matter how many people die in the chaos that will come. You are delusional if you think that we can set up a government for another country. The people need to do it themselves, just like we did for ourselves.
The guy's picking up momentum, I'll give him that. I'll also agree that some of his wild ideas actually interest me and the fact that he seems genuine about protecting our Constitution is something I really admire.
But the guy accepted campaign donations from the KKK. He hasn't denied it, he hasn't given the money back or distanced himself from it. Someone willing to accept money from a group of gigantic @$$hats like the Klan doesn't get my vote.
AnyonebutHillary '08
MarineJcksn
he actually did distance himself from it and denounce the kkk contributions theres a interview on youtube about it im 100% sure of it
[QUOTE="MarineJcksn"][QUOTE="Thechaninator"][QUOTE="MarineJcksn"][QUOTE="gameguy6700"]Really? The KKK money was your last straw with the guy? Nevermind the fact that he was the author of a bill that would've banned all religious discrimination cases from all US courts, as well as voiding all precedents set by religious cases, or the fact that he's on record as really hating gays, or the fact that he thinks the founding fathers were a bit tipsy when they wrote in the stuff about seperation of church and state in the constitution.
Ron Paul is only libertarian as far as wars and the economy go. There's a reason he's on the republican ticket and not the democratic. The only things keeping him from being a neo-con is the fact that he's anti-war and isn't deadset on forcing every person in America to be a fundamentalist christian.
Thechaninator
Very good points, I love seeing people that actually tear away the layers of all these politicians and exposes what's underneath. I mentioned the kkk point simply because it was an issue I really find disgusting, but you're right that he's got a lot against him too. But really, all the choices are mediocre this election. These days it's all about picking the lesser of 2 evils and hoping it works out, and that sucks.
Ah yes you would call them good points thanks to your bias which has caused you to not even look into these things.
Heres the thing, he is libertarian in all respects. Are you going to discredit the man for having a point of view on issues? You know that despite his view on things he in no way wishes to force them on anyone. He ultimately believes in power to the states on those issues and you would see none of his views on those moral issues slipping into legislation, which is much more than other republicans can say for themselves.
Not only that, but he is the only person in the republican party who plans to end the war and bring our troops back home. He is the only true conservative we have now and with our horrid debt a good conservative is what we need.
He also voted against the patriot act and the war in Iraq, two very important stances IMO. Not only that but he is the only candidate I have seen with any backbone to stand his ground. Anyone else see him refuse to take back his statement that our involvement in Iraq was a major cause of 9/11 even in face of Gulliani demanding he take it back?
He plans on changing our crap foreign policy which is a must. It is time we stand by and let nations tear eachother apart when it is none of our business. We never accomplished much of anything when we got involved and Iraq is just the current example of how much our foreign policy fails.
The man may not be perfect but he is easily the best of the candidates as far as I have seen. I initially was going to go democratic but the current dems in congress have proven themselves to be wishy-washy and not have enough backbone to get anything of importance done. Ron Paul on the other hand will stand and defend his views which is great to see in a candidate as we haven't had anyone with backbone in a WHILE.
End the war? Why the heck do people WHO'VE NEVER BEEN THERE cry "oh my god we gotta leave Iraq" so much? I've fought in the war, trust me when I say if you think it's bad now you HAVE NO CLUE how bad it's going to get if we lose over there.
But then again, why win wars? Why honor the 3,895 men and women who gave their lives when we can just leave?
God i miss ronald regan. For all of his faults the man sure would've made sure we took care of business in Iraq by now.
Oh yes because we actualy have a chance at winning this war.....
Staying there will only fuel more hatred for us. There is no winning the war. We have to step back and let the country sort itself out, no matter how many people die in the chaos that will come. You are delusional if you think that we can set up a government for another country. The people need to do it themselves, just like we did for ourselves.
Stated like a true believer of the Clinton News Network.
News flash my friend, we ARE winning this war. The troop surge IS working and violence is way down from the levels it once was. The iraqi people want freedom and democracy, trust me. The government is getting on it's feet, I'm not denying that it's going to take them a long time to become a peaceful democratic nation. I speak from experience of actually meeting men, women and children in that country who are more grateful of what we did for them then you can possibly imagine.
People need to do it themselves? You must've forgotten that during our revolution we had support from France, the Spanish Empire, the Dutch Republic and volunteers from Poland, Prussia and Quebec. Learn your history.
[QUOTE="MarineJcksn"]The guy's picking up momentum, I'll give him that. I'll also agree that some of his wild ideas actually interest me and the fact that he seems genuine about protecting our Constitution is something I really admire.
But the guy accepted campaign donations from the KKK. He hasn't denied it, he hasn't given the money back or distanced himself from it. Someone willing to accept money from a group of gigantic @$$hats like the Klan doesn't get my vote.
AnyonebutHillary '08
davehimself
he actually did distance himself from it and denounce the kkk contributions theres a interview on youtube about it im 100% sure of it
Really? I stand corrected then, thanks for bringing it up. If that's the case then I do feel more respect for him for doing that.
[QUOTE="MarineJcksn"][QUOTE="gameguy6700"]Really? The KKK money was your last straw with the guy? Nevermind the fact that he was the author of a bill that would've banned all religious discrimination cases from all US courts, as well as voiding all precedents set by religious cases, or the fact that he's on record as really hating gays, or the fact that he thinks the founding fathers were a bit tipsy when they wrote in the stuff about seperation of church and state in the constitution.
Ron Paul is only libertarian as far as wars and the economy go. There's a reason he's on the republican ticket and not the democratic. The only things keeping him from being a neo-con is the fact that he's anti-war and isn't deadset on forcing every person in America to be a fundamentalist christian.
Thechaninator
Very good points, I love seeing people that actually tear away the layers of all these politicians and exposes what's underneath. I mentioned the kkk point simply because it was an issue I really find disgusting, but you're right that he's got a lot against him too. But really, all the choices are mediocre this election. These days it's all about picking the lesser of 2 evils and hoping it works out, and that sucks.
Ah yes you would call them good points thanks to your bias which has caused you to not even look into these things.
Heres the thing, he is libertarian in all respects. Are you going to discredit the man for having a point of view on issues? You know that despite his view on things he in no way wishes to force them on anyone. He ultimately believes in power to the states on those issues and you would see none of his views on those moral issues slipping into legislation, which is much more than other republicans can say for themselves.
Not only that, but he is the only person in the republican party who plans to end the war and bring our troops back home. He is the only true conservative we have now and with our horrid debt a good conservative is what we need.
He also voted against the patriot act and the war in Iraq, two very important stances IMO. Not only that but he is the only candidate I have seen with any backbone to stand his ground. Anyone else see him refuse to take back his statement that our involvement in Iraq was a major cause of 9/11 even in face of Gulliani demanding he take it back?
He plans on changing our crap foreign policy which is a must. It is time we stand by and let nations tear eachother apart when it is none of our business. We never accomplished much of anything when we got involved and Iraq is just the current example of how much our foreign policy fails.
The man may not be perfect but he is easily the best of the candidates as far as I have seen. I initially was going to go democratic but the current dems in congress have proven themselves to be wishy-washy and not have enough backbone to get anything of importance done. Ron Paul on the other hand will stand and defend his views which is great to see in a candidate as we haven't had anyone with backbone in a WHILE.
What part of "author of a bill that would ban all religious discrimination cases from court" did you not understand? The man is not a civil libertarian. Google "We the People Act". The Ron Paul that you see in interviews and on his website and the Ron Paul pre-2007 are two very different people. You say that he stands his ground but the truth is that he's trying to play both the liberal and conservative platforms at the same time in order to catch all the voters who are disgruntled with Bush (and he's doing an amazing job at it). For example, Ron Paul likes to pretend these days that he's neutral on the subject of gay marriage. Too bad he's on the record as having said...well *#@) it, GS is giving me the *&#damn "HTML" error if I try to copy and paste this, so just go to this link
Anyway, if you're looking for a candidate that didn't vote for the patriot act or the Iraq war there's plenty to choose from, and you can do a hell of a lot better than Ron Paul. The fact of the matter is that if you vote for Ron Paul you're just voting in another George Bush, except this time he won't start any wars.
[QUOTE="Thechaninator"][QUOTE="MarineJcksn"][QUOTE="gameguy6700"]Really? The KKK money was your last straw with the guy? Nevermind the fact that he was the author of a bill that would've banned all religious discrimination cases from all US courts, as well as voiding all precedents set by religious cases, or the fact that he's on record as really hating gays, or the fact that he thinks the founding fathers were a bit tipsy when they wrote in the stuff about seperation of church and state in the constitution.
Ron Paul is only libertarian as far as wars and the economy go. There's a reason he's on the republican ticket and not the democratic. The only things keeping him from being a neo-con is the fact that he's anti-war and isn't deadset on forcing every person in America to be a fundamentalist christian.
gameguy6700
Very good points, I love seeing people that actually tear away the layers of all these politicians and exposes what's underneath. I mentioned the kkk point simply because it was an issue I really find disgusting, but you're right that he's got a lot against him too. But really, all the choices are mediocre this election. These days it's all about picking the lesser of 2 evils and hoping it works out, and that sucks.
Ah yes you would call them good points thanks to your bias which has caused you to not even look into these things.
Heres the thing, he is libertarian in all respects. Are you going to discredit the man for having a point of view on issues? You know that despite his view on things he in no way wishes to force them on anyone. He ultimately believes in power to the states on those issues and you would see none of his views on those moral issues slipping into legislation, which is much more than other republicans can say for themselves.
Not only that, but he is the only person in the republican party who plans to end the war and bring our troops back home. He is the only true conservative we have now and with our horrid debt a good conservative is what we need.
He also voted against the patriot act and the war in Iraq, two very important stances IMO. Not only that but he is the only candidate I have seen with any backbone to stand his ground. Anyone else see him refuse to take back his statement that our involvement in Iraq was a major cause of 9/11 even in face of Gulliani demanding he take it back?
He plans on changing our crap foreign policy which is a must. It is time we stand by and let nations tear eachother apart when it is none of our business. We never accomplished much of anything when we got involved and Iraq is just the current example of how much our foreign policy fails.
The man may not be perfect but he is easily the best of the candidates as far as I have seen. I initially was going to go democratic but the current dems in congress have proven themselves to be wishy-washy and not have enough backbone to get anything of importance done. Ron Paul on the other hand will stand and defend his views which is great to see in a candidate as we haven't had anyone with backbone in a WHILE.
What part of "author of a bill that would ban all religious discrimination cases from court" did you not understand? The man is not a civil libertarian. Google "We the People Act". The Ron Paul that you see in interviews and on his website and the Ron Paul pre-2007 are two very different people. You say that he stands his ground but the truth is that he's trying to play both the liberal and conservative platforms at the same time in order to catch all the voters who are disgruntled with Bush (and he's doing an amazing job at it). For example, Ron Paul likes to pretend these days that he's neutral on the subject of gay marriage. Too bad he's on the record as having said...well *#@) it, GS is giving me the *&#damn "HTML" error if I try to copy and paste this, so just go to this link
Anyway, if you're looking for a candidate that didn't vote for the patriot act or the Iraq war there's plenty to choose from, and you can do a hell of a lot better than Ron Paul. The fact of the matter is that if you vote for Ron Paul you're just voting in another George Bush, except this time he won't start any wars.
Religious discrimination works all the way around so I don't see how that is bias towards Christianity.
As for your link, 1 that site looks about as credible as a conspiracy theorist blog. 2, I already mentioned that he is openly against gay rights. That act isn't the best but it I am not sure if it is actually unconstituional or anything.
I would much rather vote in a candidate who MAY do something that negatively effects 10% of the population rather than someone who will negatively effect the nation as a whole.
Oh and the George Bush comment is hillarious in how untrue it is. Both his financial and foreign policy views are the opposite of Bushes. You want another George Bush look at Gulliani. He is even playing the 9/11 card like Bush!!!!
[QUOTE="Thechaninator"][QUOTE="MarineJcksn"][QUOTE="Thechaninator"][QUOTE="MarineJcksn"][QUOTE="gameguy6700"]Really? The KKK money was your last straw with the guy? Nevermind the fact that he was the author of a bill that would've banned all religious discrimination cases from all US courts, as well as voiding all precedents set by religious cases, or the fact that he's on record as really hating gays, or the fact that he thinks the founding fathers were a bit tipsy when they wrote in the stuff about seperation of church and state in the constitution.
Ron Paul is only libertarian as far as wars and the economy go. There's a reason he's on the republican ticket and not the democratic. The only things keeping him from being a neo-con is the fact that he's anti-war and isn't deadset on forcing every person in America to be a fundamentalist christian.
MarineJcksn
Very good points, I love seeing people that actually tear away the layers of all these politicians and exposes what's underneath. I mentioned the kkk point simply because it was an issue I really find disgusting, but you're right that he's got a lot against him too. But really, all the choices are mediocre this election. These days it's all about picking the lesser of 2 evils and hoping it works out, and that sucks.
Ah yes you would call them good points thanks to your bias which has caused you to not even look into these things.
Heres the thing, he is libertarian in all respects. Are you going to discredit the man for having a point of view on issues? You know that despite his view on things he in no way wishes to force them on anyone. He ultimately believes in power to the states on those issues and you would see none of his views on those moral issues slipping into legislation, which is much more than other republicans can say for themselves.
Not only that, but he is the only person in the republican party who plans to end the war and bring our troops back home. He is the only true conservative we have now and with our horrid debt a good conservative is what we need.
He also voted against the patriot act and the war in Iraq, two very important stances IMO. Not only that but he is the only candidate I have seen with any backbone to stand his ground. Anyone else see him refuse to take back his statement that our involvement in Iraq was a major cause of 9/11 even in face of Gulliani demanding he take it back?
He plans on changing our crap foreign policy which is a must. It is time we stand by and let nations tear eachother apart when it is none of our business. We never accomplished much of anything when we got involved and Iraq is just the current example of how much our foreign policy fails.
The man may not be perfect but he is easily the best of the candidates as far as I have seen. I initially was going to go democratic but the current dems in congress have proven themselves to be wishy-washy and not have enough backbone to get anything of importance done. Ron Paul on the other hand will stand and defend his views which is great to see in a candidate as we haven't had anyone with backbone in a WHILE.
End the war? Why the heck do people WHO'VE NEVER BEEN THERE cry "oh my god we gotta leave Iraq" so much? I've fought in the war, trust me when I say if you think it's bad now you HAVE NO CLUE how bad it's going to get if we lose over there.
But then again, why win wars? Why honor the 3,895 men and women who gave their lives when we can just leave?
God i miss ronald regan. For all of his faults the man sure would've made sure we took care of business in Iraq by now.
Oh yes because we actualy have a chance at winning this war.....
Staying there will only fuel more hatred for us. There is no winning the war. We have to step back and let the country sort itself out, no matter how many people die in the chaos that will come. You are delusional if you think that we can set up a government for another country. The people need to do it themselves, just like we did for ourselves.
Stated like a true believer of the Clinton News Network.
News flash my friend, we ARE winning this war. The troop surge IS working and violence is way down from the levels it once was. The iraqi people want freedom and democracy, trust me. The government is getting on it's feet, I'm not denying that it's going to take them a long time to become a peaceful democratic nation. I speak from experience of actually meeting men, women and children in that country who are more grateful of what we did for them then you can possibly imagine.
People need to do it themselves? You must've forgotten that during our revolution we had support from France, the Spanish Empire, the Dutch Republic and volunteers from Poland, Prussia and Quebec. Learn your history.
And stated like a true believer of the Fox news network.
I know not ALL the Iraqi's hate us. But fact is there are enough that do to warrant getting out. We killed Saddam, lets let them move on now. Their government can handle itself.
Uh there is a big difference between inner chaos and being attacked by another country while you aren't even a real country. Learn some common sense man.
Ron Paul has an inordinate ammount of support from white supremecists and conspiracy theorists, and he hasnt distanced himself from any of them. Makes sense, though, underdogs can't afford to reject support.Rhazakna
Well his rallies are more diverse than any other candidate
You got proof of what your accusing him of? It's ludicrous what your saying, who's feeding you this BS Fox News maybe.The guy's picking up momentum, I'll give him that. I'll also agree that some of his wild ideas actually interest me and the fact that he seems genuine about protecting our Constitution is something I really admire.
But the guy accepted campaign donations from the KKK. He hasn't denied it, he hasn't given the money back or distanced himself from it. Someone willing to accept money from a group of gigantic @$$hats like the Klan doesn't get my vote.
AnyonebutHillary '08
MarineJcksn
[QUOTE="gameguy6700"][QUOTE="Thechaninator"][QUOTE="MarineJcksn"][QUOTE="gameguy6700"]Really? The KKK money was your last straw with the guy? Nevermind the fact that he was the author of a bill that would've banned all religious discrimination cases from all US courts, as well as voiding all precedents set by religious cases, or the fact that he's on record as really hating gays, or the fact that he thinks the founding fathers were a bit tipsy when they wrote in the stuff about seperation of church and state in the constitution.
Ron Paul is only libertarian as far as wars and the economy go. There's a reason he's on the republican ticket and not the democratic. The only things keeping him from being a neo-con is the fact that he's anti-war and isn't deadset on forcing every person in America to be a fundamentalist christian.
Thechaninator
Very good points, I love seeing people that actually tear away the layers of all these politicians and exposes what's underneath. I mentioned the kkk point simply because it was an issue I really find disgusting, but you're right that he's got a lot against him too. But really, all the choices are mediocre this election. These days it's all about picking the lesser of 2 evils and hoping it works out, and that sucks.
Ah yes you would call them good points thanks to your bias which has caused you to not even look into these things.
Heres the thing, he is libertarian in all respects. Are you going to discredit the man for having a point of view on issues? You know that despite his view on things he in no way wishes to force them on anyone. He ultimately believes in power to the states on those issues and you would see none of his views on those moral issues slipping into legislation, which is much more than other republicans can say for themselves.
Not only that, but he is the only person in the republican party who plans to end the war and bring our troops back home. He is the only true conservative we have now and with our horrid debt a good conservative is what we need.
He also voted against the patriot act and the war in Iraq, two very important stances IMO. Not only that but he is the only candidate I have seen with any backbone to stand his ground. Anyone else see him refuse to take back his statement that our involvement in Iraq was a major cause of 9/11 even in face of Gulliani demanding he take it back?
He plans on changing our crap foreign policy which is a must. It is time we stand by and let nations tear eachother apart when it is none of our business. We never accomplished much of anything when we got involved and Iraq is just the current example of how much our foreign policy fails.
The man may not be perfect but he is easily the best of the candidates as far as I have seen. I initially was going to go democratic but the current dems in congress have proven themselves to be wishy-washy and not have enough backbone to get anything of importance done. Ron Paul on the other hand will stand and defend his views which is great to see in a candidate as we haven't had anyone with backbone in a WHILE.
What part of "author of a bill that would ban all religious discrimination cases from court" did you not understand? The man is not a civil libertarian. Google "We the People Act". The Ron Paul that you see in interviews and on his website and the Ron Paul pre-2007 are two very different people. You say that he stands his ground but the truth is that he's trying to play both the liberal and conservative platforms at the same time in order to catch all the voters who are disgruntled with Bush (and he's doing an amazing job at it). For example, Ron Paul likes to pretend these days that he's neutral on the subject of gay marriage. Too bad he's on the record as having said...well *#@) it, GS is giving me the *&#damn "HTML" error if I try to copy and paste this, so just go to this link
Anyway, if you're looking for a candidate that didn't vote for the patriot act or the Iraq war there's plenty to choose from, and you can do a hell of a lot better than Ron Paul. The fact of the matter is that if you vote for Ron Paul you're just voting in another George Bush, except this time he won't start any wars.
Religious discrimination works all the way around so I don't see how that is bias towards Christianity.
As for your link, 1 that site looks about as credible as a conspiracy theorist blog. 2, I already mentioned that he is openly against gay rights. That act isn't the best but it I am not sure if it is actually unconstituional or anything.
I would much rather vote in a candidate who MAY do something that negatively effects 10% of the population rather than someone who will negatively effect the nation as a whole.
Oh and the George Bush comment is hillarious in how untrue it is. Both his financial and foreign policy views are the opposite of Bushes. You want another George Bush look at Gulliani. He is even playing the 9/11 card like Bush!!!!
I said Ron Paul would be like Bush except without the war or foreign affairs mess. Check my post. However, he and Bush share very similar views on domestic policy which should scare you (or are you one of those people who hates Bush because its the popular thing to do and you have no idea besides the war what he's done wrong?). Furthermore, I never said banning religious discrimination cases was biased toward Christianity (although because Christianity is the majority religion it would be). If you can't realize why banning an entire category of civil lawsuits is bad and/or unconstitutional then please do not register to vote this election. As for the link I gave, that quote, and others, are all over the internet. While its certainly possible its made up, the fact that its always the same quote lends credibility.
It seems the only issues you care about are the war and foreign policy. Just know that Ron Paul is far from being the only candidate this year who opposes the war and supports drawing back from foreign entanglements. The majority of candidates have that exact same stance. He's not unique in that regard, and considering the rest of his platform he's not someone you want to vote for (unless you're a diehard conservative in which case knock yourself out).
[QUOTE="Thechaninator"][QUOTE="gameguy6700"][QUOTE="Thechaninator"][QUOTE="MarineJcksn"][QUOTE="gameguy6700"]Really? The KKK money was your last straw with the guy? Nevermind the fact that he was the author of a bill that would've banned all religious discrimination cases from all US courts, as well as voiding all precedents set by religious cases, or the fact that he's on record as really hating gays, or the fact that he thinks the founding fathers were a bit tipsy when they wrote in the stuff about seperation of church and state in the constitution.
Ron Paul is only libertarian as far as wars and the economy go. There's a reason he's on the republican ticket and not the democratic. The only things keeping him from being a neo-con is the fact that he's anti-war and isn't deadset on forcing every person in America to be a fundamentalist christian.
gameguy6700
Very good points, I love seeing people that actually tear away the layers of all these politicians and exposes what's underneath. I mentioned the kkk point simply because it was an issue I really find disgusting, but you're right that he's got a lot against him too. But really, all the choices are mediocre this election. These days it's all about picking the lesser of 2 evils and hoping it works out, and that sucks.
Ah yes you would call them good points thanks to your bias which has caused you to not even look into these things.
Heres the thing, he is libertarian in all respects. Are you going to discredit the man for having a point of view on issues? You know that despite his view on things he in no way wishes to force them on anyone. He ultimately believes in power to the states on those issues and you would see none of his views on those moral issues slipping into legislation, which is much more than other republicans can say for themselves.
Not only that, but he is the only person in the republican party who plans to end the war and bring our troops back home. He is the only true conservative we have now and with our horrid debt a good conservative is what we need.
He also voted against the patriot act and the war in Iraq, two very important stances IMO. Not only that but he is the only candidate I have seen with any backbone to stand his ground. Anyone else see him refuse to take back his statement that our involvement in Iraq was a major cause of 9/11 even in face of Gulliani demanding he take it back?
He plans on changing our crap foreign policy which is a must. It is time we stand by and let nations tear eachother apart when it is none of our business. We never accomplished much of anything when we got involved and Iraq is just the current example of how much our foreign policy fails.
The man may not be perfect but he is easily the best of the candidates as far as I have seen. I initially was going to go democratic but the current dems in congress have proven themselves to be wishy-washy and not have enough backbone to get anything of importance done. Ron Paul on the other hand will stand and defend his views which is great to see in a candidate as we haven't had anyone with backbone in a WHILE.
What part of "author of a bill that would ban all religious discrimination cases from court" did you not understand? The man is not a civil libertarian. Google "We the People Act". The Ron Paul that you see in interviews and on his website and the Ron Paul pre-2007 are two very different people. You say that he stands his ground but the truth is that he's trying to play both the liberal and conservative platforms at the same time in order to catch all the voters who are disgruntled with Bush (and he's doing an amazing job at it). For example, Ron Paul likes to pretend these days that he's neutral on the subject of gay marriage. Too bad he's on the record as having said...well *#@) it, GS is giving me the *&#damn "HTML" error if I try to copy and paste this, so just go to this link
Anyway, if you're looking for a candidate that didn't vote for the patriot act or the Iraq war there's plenty to choose from, and you can do a hell of a lot better than Ron Paul. The fact of the matter is that if you vote for Ron Paul you're just voting in another George Bush, except this time he won't start any wars.
Religious discrimination works all the way around so I don't see how that is bias towards Christianity.
As for your link, 1 that site looks about as credible as a conspiracy theorist blog. 2, I already mentioned that he is openly against gay rights. That act isn't the best but it I am not sure if it is actually unconstituional or anything.
I would much rather vote in a candidate who MAY do something that negatively effects 10% of the population rather than someone who will negatively effect the nation as a whole.
Oh and the George Bush comment is hillarious in how untrue it is. Both his financial and foreign policy views are the opposite of Bushes. You want another George Bush look at Gulliani. He is even playing the 9/11 card like Bush!!!!
I said Ron Paul would be like Bush except without the war or foreign affairs mess. Check my post. However, he and Bush share very similar views on domestic policy which should scare you (or are you one of those people who hates Bush because its the popular thing to do and you have no idea besides the war what he's done wrong?). Furthermore, I never said banning religious discrimination cases was biased toward Christianity (although because Christianity is the majority religion it would be). If you can't realize why banning an entire category of civil lawsuits is bad and/or unconstitutional then please do not register to vote this election. As for the link I gave, that quote, and others, are all over the internet. While its certainly possible its made up, the fact that its always the same quote lends credibility.
It seems the only issues you care about are the war and foreign policy. Just know that Ron Paul is far from being the only candidate this year who opposes the war and supports drawing back from foreign entanglements. The majority of candidates have that exact same stance. He's not unique in that regard, and considering the rest of his platform he's not someone you want to vote for (unless you're a diehard conservative in which case knock yourself out).
Haha his domestic policy is nothing like Bush. Since when did Bush want to end the drug war?
:lol: It's much worse than the places other candidates get their money from :roll: They need to get it from somewhere, at least he doesn't deny it. X360PS3AMD05
I'd rather that a few racist dickwads in a dying organazation gave 60 bucks to his campaign then the millions from defense contractors and special interests that others get.
People think President Paul is gonna start writing and signing laws by himself.
He is not a theocrat like some will try and paint him as. He wants freedom for ALL Religions and "non" religions.
[QUOTE="X360PS3AMD05"]:lol: It's much worse than the places other candidates get their money from :roll: They need to get it from somewhere, at least he doesn't deny it. YeahYes
I'd rather that a few racist dickwads in a dying organazation gave 60 bucks to his campaign then the millions from defense contractors and lobbyists that others get.
People think President Paul is gonna start writing and signing laws by himself.
He is not a theocrat like some will try and paint him as. He wants freedom for ALL Religions and "non" religions.
I guess i worded that wrong, i still support him.Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment