Tweetyo, finally someone speaks the truth


f the propaganda, the fed is f'n everyone and folks are meowing about this shyte

TweetWE SHOULD DO EVERYTHING WE CAN TO DESTROY AL-QAEDA THOSE WERE RON PAULS WORDS BUT I THOUGHT HE WASNT FOR WAR. AND IF HE ISNT FOR WAR THEN HOW ARE WE GOING TO DESTROY AL-Q. BUT I'M HAPPY TO SEE AS MANY PEOPLE SPEAK OUT AGAINST THIS BECAUSE THIS SHOULDNT BE BUILT.TRIP THIS IS YOUR PRESIDENT PAL THAT IS CAUSING THIS MESS. HAVE YOU FINALY WOKE UP AND WILL FINALY SAY HE ISNT RIGHT FOR AMERICA AND NEEDS TO BE OUT. I'M ALSO HAPPY THAT ALL THE CANIDATES ON THE REPUBLICAN SIDE DONT WANT THIS BUILT

Tweettheres freedom of speech but its against the law to yell"FIRE" IN A movie theater

Tweet

Originally Posted by FUZO

WE SHOULD DO EVERYTHING WE CAN TO DESTROY AL-QAEDA THOSE WERE RON PAULS WORDS BUT I THOUGHT HE WASNT FOR WAR. AND IF HE ISNT FOR WAR THEN HOW ARE WE GOING TO DESTROY AL-Q. BUT I'M HAPPY TO SEE AS MANY PEOPLE SPEAK OUT AGAINST THIS BECAUSE THIS SHOULDNT BE BUILT.TRIP THIS IS YOUR PRESIDENT PAL THAT IS CAUSING THIS MESS. HAVE YOU FINALY WOKE UP AND WILL FINALY SAY HE ISNT RIGHT FOR AMERICA AND NEEDS TO BE OUT. I'M ALSO HAPPY THAT ALL THE CANIDATES ON THE REPUBLICAN SIDE DONT WANT THIS BUILT

Ron Paul has never been anti-war, and he voted in support of going into Afghanistan. What Ron Paul does not support is a interventionist war strategy, the same as the founding fathers. He does not support nation building, the same as the founding fathers. He did not support going into Iraq.

Tweetonly scary thing is that he could end up doing a ross perot and we end up with another 4 years of obama. otherwise, I would vote for ron paul. This interventionist crap is running this country into the ground.
How rude that interviewer was, trying to put words in ron pauls mouth. "You are saying that mosque SHOULD be built!"..what an a$$

TweetRight, Ron Paul voted FOR us to go into Afghanistan but voted AGAINST us going into Iraq.

Tweet

Originally Posted by Dzone

only scary thing is that he could end up doing a ross perot and we end up with another 4 years of obama. otherwise, I would vote for ron paul. This interventionist crap is running this country into the ground.
How rude that interviewer was, trying to put words in ron pauls mouth. "You are saying that mosque SHOULD be built!"..what an a$$

There's no doubt in my mind that Ron Paul would be the greatest president since Thomas Jefferson. The problem for him would be Congress and the Senate preventing him from fixing our problems. Also, he would probably be more susceptible to assassination attempts since he would be working against the puppet masters. But Paul is not going to become president because Fox News, and the Republican Party don't want him to be. There will never be pro-Ron Paul coverage on Fox. However, it is interesting that he won the straw pole at the CPAC this year and tied for first with Mitt Romney in another pole as the favorite presidential candidate. When people listen to him and have a fair opportunity to hear his views, many agree with him. Also, it is mostly people educated on history and politics that tend to support him. Those who understand the roots of Republicanism like Ron Paul, while the neo-conservatives who know nothing about true Republicanism tend to despise him. I find it funny how the Republican Party claims to be the party for smaller government, maximum liberty, and pro-Constitution does not support Paul, when he is the one person who follows all of these to a tee. He does not budge from his principles whatsoever, and believes wholeheartedly in liberty, the Constitution, and small government. I only wish I would have discovered Paul sooner, but he has sure changed my views for the better. Unfortunately, we are left with the choice of neo-cons and left wing progressives, but one day hopefully Americans will wake up and learn history and what our Republican government was meant to be. Our nation is full of those who want the government to take care of them from cradle to grave, and support any government action that is inline with their individual views regardless of the Constitution or of any impact on individual rights. The mosque debate is just another case that proves my point with regard to liberty and hypocrisy.

TweetI really liked Ron Paul heading into the last election, but without Republican endoresement he was never a threat for the preseidency. I was surprised to see that he still registered a surprising number of votes...I saw a clip of his speech earlier tonight, and I cannot really disagree with anything I heard him say. He speaks the truth, and is true to his ideology and political roots. He doesn't play the political games or make back-room deals like the others on capitol hill - and that is why he will never gain that endorsement, and unfortunately Paul will never come close to sitting in the oval office. Ross Perot is an interesting comparison, if only because they both provided refreshingly honest and straightforward approaches to their candidacy. I liked Perot too. Too bad that our government has become so unlike the one our founders dreamed it would and could be. Worse, I don't see how it will ever be corrected in a meaningful way back toward the ideals of those visionary men. All we have now is dismay and regret over the past "mistakes" of our representatives; Helplessly, we fear for the futures of our children and grandchildren as we are all caught up in the undercurrent of the selfish self-preservation strategies of the elected and their corporate partners. It is sickening.

Tweetjsjs cmon dude thats preety harsh to say that fox news will prevent him from being president because of news coverage thats a little to far out there. And the poeple elect presidents and if they thought he was the best canidate they would of voted for him why does there have to be a conspiracy of fox news not liking him.So if he's for one place and not the other that doesnt make sense since the enemy is in Iraq and in Afghanistan.

[QUOTE I find it funny how the Republican Party claims to be the party for smaller government, maximum liberty, and pro-Constitution does not support Paul, when he is the one person who follows all of these to a tee. He does not budge from his principles whatsoever, and believes wholeheartedly in liberty, the Constitution, and small government][/QUOTE]


The republicans are for smaller Gov lower axes and all that you said. It seems again that since bush put his policies to congress to pass and if they werent good they shouldnt of been passed. But why do people blame bush when it was the democrats in control that passed these bills that made america sinking fast. People has horse blinders on when they elcted this idiot we have now they were not thinking and the people were not smart because they wanted change and the blojama team came up with a good game plan that we know now is full of shit. But this will not happen again.Jsjs you always say I hope your right and I dont know but when it comes to paul its like he's the savior but we dont know if his policies will work and his ideas. If he runs and has good ideas and the people see that they will vote that way but last election they didnt see that and he was almost dead last. Mabey he can turn it around but if he wants to he needs to change his ideas also in some ways










And again why are people blamming bush for the democtas were in control

Tweetrepubs say they are for lower taxes and smaller government yet the facts clearly are 100% the opposite, regan and bush are factually the biggest spenders in history bar none

paul will never be elected, he rambles after making clear concise points, repubs have the tried and true lower taxes, security brands, bama won on a new one change we can believe in..............

personally i've comee to the conclusion the X that marks the spot is the FED

watch alan grayson on the dems side

Tweet

Originally Posted by FUZO

jsjs cmon dude thats preety harsh to say that fox news will prevent him from being president because of news coverage thats a little to far out there. And the poeple elect presidents and if they thought he was the best canidate they would of voted for him why does there have to be a conspiracy of fox news not liking him.So if he's for one place and not the other that doesnt make sense since the enemy is in Iraq and in Afghanistan.

Fuzo, you are taking my post out of context somewhat. Please hear me out on my point.

It should be obvious that I do like Fox News, especially Glenn Beck, The Judge, and John Stossel; I don't agree with O'reilly on a whole lot but I do watch him too. But I will admit that some of the stuff on Fox gets to me sometimes, but it is by far better than all the other stations. My point is that Fox News is owned by Rupert Murdoch, a neo-conservative who it seems obvious will not permit favorable coverage of Ron Paul on the main network, but Fox Business is apparently free to do so since Napolitano openly supports him. You have to be kidding yourself if you think a Republican candidate has a chance in hell at winning the Presidential election without the support of Fox News and other conservative news agencies such as The Weekly Standard, Drudge Report, and talk radio hosts. It takes the media to get your name and message out to the people. This has to be the most important factor in a political campaign. Please explain to me how any candidate would have a chance at winning if the people don't know who he is or what he represents. Fox News hardly ever mentions Ron Paul and when they do it is merely to criticize him. Thus, the American people which by and large rely on news shows and talk radio to get their information are left in the blind when it comes to Paul unless they follow him or unless of course they are Libertarians.

Now I'll respond one more time to your accusation about people bashing Bush. For the record, I don't hate Bush, but I think his policies were severely out of step with the Republican Party's roots. I don't "bash" Bush, but will correct a mistake when I see one. You have to keep in mind that the President has the power to veto any bill that he doesn't like, which is exactly what Bush did to the Democrats for two years (2006-2008) and rightfully so. However, he had a Republican majority house and senate from 2002-2006, or half of his presidency; the first two years were fairly even. In 2004 according to the article below, spending had already increased under Bush as the fastest rate in 30 years; and the chart distinguishes between non-defensive spending and total spending. Furthermore, he had not vetoed a single bill in five years in office (setting a record), which means he didn't prevent a single dollar from being spent.

https://www.independent.org/newsroom/....asp?newsID=31

Below is a chart of vetoes by other presidents.

Veto / Overridden
Franklin Roosevelt (D) 635 9
Harry Truman (D) 250 12
Dwight Eisenhower (R) 181 2
John F. Kennedy (D) 21 -
Lyndon Johnson (D) 30 -
Richard Nixon (R) 43 7
Gerald Ford (R) 66 12
Jimmy Carter (D) 31 2
Ronald Reagan (R) 78 9
George H.W. Bush (R) 44 1
Bill Clinton (D) 37 2
George Bush (R) 12 0

I am not the typical American voter who agrees with everything from their party. I know what my views are and I stick to them. The problem for me with most Republican talking heads and Democrat talking heads is that they support everything their party does, even if it is a bad decision or against their party's principles. I simply see Bush for what he did which was increase the size of the Federal Government and increased total spending and deficits. He could have vetoed many of the Republican bills but didn't. Instead he let them go on a spending free with no checks and balances.

As for Ron Paul, his record speaks for itself. Look it up and you will see that he has never budged from his principles, which are the principles of the Republican government that our founders built. I wish people understood my position more clearly, and realized that I don't draw party lines; even with the Libertarian Party for that matter. I do oppose the Democrat Party and progressives alike. I do not agree with anything Obama has done, but that does not mean I should support everything that Bush did. I want a president who will decrease the size of government, or at least not grow it any larger, and at the same time decrease spending and lower taxes, all while following the Constitution.

Tweet

Originally Posted by trip

repubs say they are for lower taxes and smaller government yet the facts clearly are 100% the opposite, regan and bush are factually the biggest spenders in history bar none

paul will never be elected, he rambles after making clear concise points, repubs have the tried and true lower taxes, security brands, bama won on a new one change we can believe in..............

personally i've comee to the conclusion the X that marks the spot is the FED

watch alan grayson on the dems side

Alan Grayson is the most pathetic man in Congress. Are you seriously thinking that radical minded idiot has a chance at becoming the president some day? I'm confused Trip, hopefully just misunderstanding you here.

Tweeti'm just saying watch him, he's with ron paul on fed bs, and he's the only dem with balls, and doesn't talk and talk and talk and talk, he says one two things and that's it

my bet is bama makes it 8 and then hillary will re-emerge, i don't know who on repub side, in the next 6 years grayson might make some inroads, he's a fav on cnn and msnbc

i really don't more about him then what i see and hear, he's fairly logical in his views

my original fav was huckabee but then he started godding it up too much and that was just too big of a remider of bush and his god stuff,

as i've said i think 2020 is the libertarains year, they really need someone with some charisma