Only Ron Paul (please only Ron Paul supportors should post)

Honestly, no.

That sad commentary shows how far left the modern Republican Party has moved. They are no longer the part of limited government. Now they are party of BIG conservative government. IMO, that is just as bad as BIG liberal government.

 

Chuck Baldwin.

 

Wayne Allyn Root, Mary Ruwart, Bob Barr in the Libertarian Party - and just about anybody the LP might nominate.

Rand Paul and Gary Johnson in the GOP.

 

First of all, it looks like you're using Nancy Pelosi's accounting service. There are not 300 million viable candidates.

Second, no, I can name many. But when limited to the criteria set by your question, I'm not confident that I can say with any certainty at this point that I would vote for anyone else.

 

I should have added as an independent candidate - Jesse Ventura.

 

You've GOT to be kidding.

I used to like Jesse when he claimed he was a Libertarian. Of course, that's only for things like drugs and prostitution. Health care, education, etc., he's just another big government liberal. He's like Bill Maher.

Edited: I am a former RP guy til I got to know his record. So maybe I should excuse myself.

 

Nope. Not kidding. I have not read anything the likes of which you are accusing Jesse of as far as federal involvement in health care, education, etc. But you may be more read up on Jesse than I am.

On the other two issues you mentioned I have no problem with decriminalizing them.

 

As I recall, TomVols' gripe with Ron Paul was that Ron Paul is not a perfect man. Apparently, TomVols allows the perfect to be the enemy of the good when it comes to examining presidential candidates. Otherwise, he wouldn't be nitpicking on Ron Paul. His arguments against Ron Paul were without substantive merit. But perhaps he has come up with newer ones than the ones he tried to use during 2007 that fell flat.

 

For instance, Jesse spent more on state education than any other governor in MN history by his own account. The result was to increse the number of state employees, teachers, etc. And he has said he'd like to see more of the same from the fed level. Let me dig up some links. Some is from memory from his books. I know he proposes more ethanol funding from the federal govt. I agree with his prior positions on advocating a national sales tax (Fair tax) though there's some question as to whether this is still his position. He remains in favor of federal welfare as I've read and heard him speak. My understanding is he's also done a switch on global trade, though I've yet to source this, and the death penalty.

I do agree with much of what he says. But sometimes the cooky stuff can diminish his gravitas.

Unless noted, quotes are from Ventura's Do I Stand Alone?
Ethanol:

I disagree with his view of the Constitution:

On Healthcare:

My friend Ken's memory is lacking. My problem with RP was simply that his rhetoric did not match his record. I've posted his record on here before, discussed ad infinitim, particularly on his abysmal record on the sanctity of life, his flip-flop on education funding federal level-wise, double-speak on national health care, and others. Some partisans simply turned a blind eye to his record. It would be nice if we could live in a world where folks like Paul, Bush, and Obama could say one thing and do another and be some sort of Pied Piper, playing rhetorical tunes void of accomplishment and record. But this is not fantasy world we live in. If what you do doesn't match what you say, that speaks louder than a thousand speeches or books. I don't look for perfection. I look for consistency. I look for walk that matches the talk. I know I'm in the minority.

The day Paul comes to a libertarian and conservative record and rhetoric, he'll get my full-throated support. But not a moment before.

I think there are more consistent folks in the Liberty GOP and in the Libertarian party that would be more beneficial to the country.

 

Hate to break the bad news to y'all but national politics is just a horse race with all the horses owned by the same international companies.

I support Ron Paul not because he might become president, that'll never be allowed to happen. Neither do I support him because I believe he can save our national bacon. He wouldn't be allowed to do that even if by some miracle he did become POTUS.

I support him because he speaks the plain truth and commone sense. I'd back any candidate who speaks the plain truth and common sense so at this point there's probably only about three, Ron, Rand and Chuck.

I don't support candidates I support the truth. Candidates come and go and most should have never showed up in the first place!

 

Here we go again, establishment shills demonizing Ron Paul.

The psychological operations conducted by the government of conditioning the public through covert mind control and subliminal influence has been documented for many years. This continued throughout Ron Paul’s presidential campaign, and now that there is talk of a Ron Paul run in 2012 , even on Paul’s own website, with 94% of respondants favoring a 2012 run in the latest poll, establishment pundits on the so-called right are amping up a marginalization campaign of Dr. Paul and his supporters.

Last week, in a bizzare stretch that would make Orwell blush, Hannity called Ron Paul supporters extremists and claimed that the military industrial complex is what gives us freedom of speech.

Hannity had previously told Chuck Norris that Ron Paul is nuts after Norris spoke favorably of Paul.

In his thorough August 2009 article FBI informants operating openly in our midst, Alex Ansary includes a clip where Hannity is confronted regarding his association with neo-nazi FBI informant Hal Turner.

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Glenn Beck, meanwhile, who has been touted as a potential running mate by Sarah Palin, is on record saying that he "hates 9/11 victims families for asking questions." [/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Palin's lead John McCain went so far as to blame the rise of Hitler on Ron Paul's ideology. Even supposed truth seekers are demonizing Paul, with 9/11 truth advocate Webster Tarpley insisting that Hitler's critque of FDR policies are the same as those espoused by modern-day libertarians.[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]It might be helpful to revisit one of the more notorious instances of this smear campaign: when Glenn Beck likened Ron Paul supporters to terrorists. As PrisonPlanet.com reported at the time, complaints flooded CNN in the aftermath of that broadcast.[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Here is a summary with partial transcript and analysis of that program which aired during the 2008 presidential campaign.[/FONT]


Full Article


We are forced to digest the bizarre and abhorrent spectacle of a British elitist, "former" Marxist Horowitz and anti-American Neo-Con Glenn Beck infer that 1776, the founding fathers and the very birth of freedom in America is somehow evil and affiliated with terrorism and extremism.

This brought back memories of a July 2001 FEMA training meeting in Missouri where a FEMA representative was caught on video instructing local police that the American people were the enemy and that George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and the rest of the founding fathers were a terrorist organization.

SOURCE

Watch the video below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPg9MdN9Gio&feature=player_embedded

This all caught on of course with a great number of folks here spouting the very same propaganda points, without even thinking most likely. Just goes to show how well the conditioning process works I reckon.​