Ron Paul

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Hfa7vT02lA

 

Ron Paul debate wins being censored

Early Poll Screenshot - Ron Paul at 47%
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/204/483438617_42ebbc5318_o.png

http://alaskaintel.blogspot.com/2007/05/net-shoves-ron-paul-right-down-abcs.html

Myspace blocking mention of Ron Paul http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehhj-0JsKmA

Now Yahoo! Censor Popular Support For Ron Paul
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2007/080507yahoocensor.htm

The Ron Paul Effect
http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=3147940

Ron Paul Success Censored
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2007/070507ronpaul.htm

Looks like everyone's scared of Ron Paul. MSNBC's poll showed that Ron Paul won the Republican debate hands down. But ABC didn't even include him in their poll and Myspace is actively blocking any support of him.

Ron Paul's not a NeoCon, and he's obviously got the big money party elitists and the global corporatists running scared.

 

They have very good reason to be afraid

There isn't a single other Republican candidate that isn't insane or a flip-flopper - nor s there that has a record that shows they support traditional Republican policies or positions. A bunch of flunkies with the top party position that is totally tanking in the polls!

However, what is that Paul has that Mike Gravel doesn't? In a couple words; universal health care. All the rest you can say the same for Gravel, including the media's refusal to give any attention to him. In fact, he may not be able to participate in future televised debates. That's our "liberal media" at work for us right there, choosing FOR us who we can be exposed to, and therefore who we should vote for!

www.gravel08.com

 

What does he say about illegals?

 

I wouldn't count out Paul yet. I've been saying for a while now that we're in position for a significant political realignment (such as the famous ones of 1800, 1828, 1860, 1896, 1932, 1984, 1994...).

Eventually I'll be right and I will be able to say that I called it.

 

Are you saying that you only vote for a person you think will win? No wonder our country is in such sad shape.

 

It makes sense. Why vote for someone who's going to get some 2% of the poplar vote? Might as well vote for a candidate who has a legitimate chance of winning.

 

Because that is total stupidity.

So, you would vote for whoever you think will win. Even if it is a Hitler type, or Stalin type, or any other monster??? You'd vote for them because you think they will win. That's just sick thinkin'.

 

But that's a huge thinking error. And it's sad that our society thinks that way, but they do. And let's just call it what it is - stupidity. Most people look at politics like some kind of sporting competition. They want to vote for a winner so they can say "Hey, my team won, we're winners!" It is very simplistic and primitive thinking to do this when you know that you're compromising your principles.

 

Very well put Truth-Bringer. Thanks.

 

You misunderstood. If you're trying to decide between someone who pulls 2% in the polls and someone who pulls 45% -- you might as well vote for the 45% one or else you're essentially wasting a vote.

I'm not saying that you vote for whoever you think is going to win regardless, but if you want your vote to really matter -- you vote for the guy who most closely adheres to your beliefs and who also has the best chance of winning of all the people of whom you are considering voting for.

 

If everyone voted for who they really wanted to be president, maybe we could take back our country.

 

I'm all up for change. Let's do it!!!!