Please Vote Ron Paul!

[KinestheticThought]

RON PAUL....
...plans to bring our troops home from around the world.

...does not use any taxpayer money for his campaign.

...is willing to take an annual salary of $39,336 (a savings of $360,664 compared to the current $400,000).

...has never taken a gov-paid junket and returns a portion of his Congressional budget to the treasury every year.


He also plans to end the federal reserve's ability to devalue your savings by printing more money without Congressional approval and has more than five times the number of meetup groups as Romney, Santorum, Gingrich, and Obama combined!

VIDEOS/LINKS:
*
*
* (Please watch ending)
*

MUSIC VIDEOS:
*
*
*

SOURCEs:
* Between January 1 and September 30, 2011 Ron Paul received $113,739. Obama received $68,661; Romney $11,555; Cain $9,518; Perry $7325; Bachmann $7182; Gingrich $1,275; Santorum $750...68,661+11,555+9,518+7325+7182+1275+750=$106,266 ...$106,266 <$113,739, which indicates that Ron Paul received more miliary contributions than all other Republican candidates and Obama COMBINED! Funding information provided by http://ronpaulbrochure.com/
* http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/candi ... =N00005906 and http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/index.php
* http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option= ... &Itemid=28
* http://www.ronpaul.tv/ron-paul/ron-paul ... -39336.php, ronpaulbrochure.com, or http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... topstories
*http://www.ronpaul.net/html/about.html
*Romney12,Santorum 0, Gingrich 10, and Obama 151=175 "other" and Ron Paul had 939 as of 1:13p.m PST on 2/26/2012 To check the current numbers for yourself, simply go to meetup.com, type in each candidate's name, then compare the numbers in any way you like. In this case I added up the "other" category to divide into the total number of Ron Paul meetups. Please note that a "meetup" group is a group of real people becoming actively engaged in their communities, holding actual physical meetings/meetups, and they cost money to start/maintain ($12 per month for 6 months, $15 per month for 3 months, or a flat $19 per month to go month to month). This suggests that it is a valid way to guage meetup.com's user base's pick for president-via the vote of spending money and people dedicating the time to join and participate in such groups.

[AntiM]

Bring the troops home = close our big bases overseas, effectively making our military next to useless. Isolationism didn't work in 1812, why would it work now?

[stinkyfoot]

How about, vote if you like, but realize party politics is mostly a huge farce and just another face of the parasitical social construct that's driving our civilization into decline. If you want to do something significant, start brainstorming how you can take that radical self reliance thing into the mainstream.

In my future we hunt the ridiculously wealthy for sport.

[lemur]

Bring the troops home = close our big bases overseas, effectively making our military next to useless. Isolationism didn't work in 1812, why would it work now?

Isolationism is the policy or doctrine of isolating one's country from the affairs of other nations by declining to enter into alliances, foreign economic commitments, foreign trade, international agreements, etc., seeking to devote the entire efforts of one's country to its own advancement and remain at peace by avoiding foreign entanglements and responsibilities. Two other terms often confused with Isolationism are:

1. Non-interventionism – Says that political rulers should avoid entangling alliances with other nations and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial differences (self-defense). However, most non-interventionists are supporters of free trade, travel, and support certain international agreements, and therefore differ from isolationists.
2. Protectionism – Relates more often to economics, there should be legal barriers to control trade and cultural exchange with people in other states.

Nonintervention or non-interventionism is a foreign policy which holds that political rulers should avoid alliances with other nations, but still retain diplomacy, and avoid all wars not related to direct self-defense. This is based on the grounds that a state should not interfere in the internal politics of another state, based upon the principles of state sovereignty and self-determination. A similar phrase is "strategic independence".[1] Historical examples of supporters of non-interventionism are US Presidents George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, who both favored nonintervention in European Wars while maintaining free trade. Other proponents include United States Senator Robert Taft and United States Congressman Ron Paul

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/200 ... ts-a-fals/

the Democratic and Republican parties argue that the U.S. must ether confront every evil in every corner of the globe or risk danger at home. We need to “fight them over there” they say, so we don’t have to “fight them over here.” This argument presents a false choice. We do not have to pick between interventionism and vulnerability.

Moving forward, I suggest that we as Americans adhere to these five principles:

1. We do not abdicate American sovereignty to global institutions. The purpose of the United States is to protect the liberty of the American people.

2. We provide a strong national defense, but we do not police the world. America should be armed with defensive weapons capable of repelling any attack. We should spend all appropriate money to make sure that no country in world can credibly threaten us.

3. We obey the Constitution and follow the rule of law. The Constitution clearly states that only Congress can declare war. Congress abandoned that responsibility during the buildup to the Iraq war and must never make that mistake again. When wars are undeclared, they drag on with no clear plan or exit strategy. If we must fight, we should do so with overwhelming force, win as quickly as possible and promptly withdraw.

4. We do not engage in nation-building.

5. We stay out of the internal affairs of other nations. America should conduct trade, travel and diplomacy with all willing nations. Intervention, however, always has unintended consequences and almost always gets us in trouble.

it appears that Ron Paul doesnt speak for isolationism at all., but instead he appears to speak for non-interventionism.

[tamarakay]

No. Never in a million years. Not ever. No.

That's as political as I get.

No. No. No.
Absolutely not.

[lemur]

No. Never in a million years. Not ever. No.

That's as political as I get.

No. No. No.
Absolutely not.

even if all of eplaya voted for him he would never win..


we have this little thing called the electoral college!!.. and it wont be kind to Ron Paul..

theres basically zero chance of him ever winning..


he runs to get his message out..... nothing more.

[AntiM]

Okay, make it about trade. Free trade depends on open sea lanes, and we need a globally effective Navy to accomplish that. Turn our bases over to the host nations? Perhaps, then we need to back out of alliances and diplomatic ties ... it is a tangled mess, and I do not think Mr. Paul has any sort of over-arching vision of what he suggests truly entails. I certainly do not, but I don't see his stance as protecting American liberty in the long run. We are global now, like it or not. While I admire Washington and Jefferson, their world was far smaller than the one we live in today.

Depend on other Navies? We work with them, but truly, we do have the best Navy in the world, and other nations call on us for humanitarian aid and well, to help them keep their sea lanes open. Naive to think we can just pick up our toys and stay home.

Bringing out troops home means dismantling jobs, a LOT of jobs. Not going to fly in today's economy. The military is expensive, but it does employ voters ... not just the service members, but their dependents, the GS workers. I just don't see it in the simplistic terms as quoted.

I'm not good at cut and paste, sorry I can't be eloquent. Nice sentiments, but I don't see any real policy there, no plan on implementation. I see bumperstickers, not diplomacy.

[Kinetik V]

Quite simply, it ain't EVER gonna happen. If the Vegas Sportsbooks could slap odds on his chances at making it to the WH, they'd post his odds North of 900 to 1.

I find the Ron Paul supporters kind of amusing. They put banners on freeway overpasses. They clog up First Friday events handing out papers that get chucked into the trash 4 seconds after it hits someone's hand. They promise pie in the sky....and frankly I'm not buying what that idiot is trying to sell the American people.

The only good thing I can say about Ron Paul is he's better than Rick Santorum. I don't know where that sorry dumbass come from, but Rick is the first presidential candidate that honestly scares the heck out of me. His campaign should be sponsored by Planters as he's legitimately NUTS!

[AntiM]

I actually know a Santorum supporter. He likes the "moral values" stance. We are old friends, and have hidden each other on FB. He used to be an intelligent man, but his brain turned to religious goo when he quit drinking. I am not kidding.

[lemur]

.....it is a tangled mess, and I do not think Mr. Paul has any sort of over-arching vision of what he suggests truly entails. ........... Nice sentiments, but I don't see any real policy there, no plan on implementation. I see bumperstickers, not diplomacy.

it seems to me from reading what he wrote above that he is merely speaking for these positions, he neednt have to find ways to actually implement them because he knows and we know he would never get elected president..and even if he did have ways, he would still never be elected president. (even with the best cabinet on the planet who could implement every idea he ever had without him even needing to know how they did it)

it IS like a bumper sticker



who doesnt want to stop war ?

it is a nice sentiment.... so is "END WORLD HUNGER" and "LETS END POVERTY"... those are big visions, too.. but it aint like thats stopping people from trying....

its not like theres only two choices: between doing and not trying.. 'IF WE CANT END HUNGER, WHY TRY!?' 'IF WE CANT END POVERTY WHY TRY?'

...it might not be feasible or workable or simple to ratchet back the vast military and its supporting cast, but, we surely could use it more wisely

the USA could keep all the jobs, all of the diplomatic ties and alliances..they could keep the feeling of security that having 700+ bases around the world provides.. they could keep the global naval fleet... but have 1 less interventionist conflict per century...

even 1 less per century would be a pretty good deal.

(unless of course, youre these guys: General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, United Technologies Corporation, L-3 Communications, ...etc.. )

(disclaimer: i am not for Ron Paul, or any presidential candidate...i dont take part in the national political votes.... but! i am for non-interventionism.. )



vote switzerland 2012!!!

[AntiM]

I can agree with non-internwhatsit. Afghanistan would be a good start. The Soviets couldn't do it, neither can we.

[Ugly Dougly]

Corporate deregulation hidden behind a promise of legal dope.

[tamarakay]

I actually know a Santorum supporter. He likes the "moral values" stance. We are old friends, and have hidden each other on FB. He used to be an intelligent man, but his brain turned to religious goo when he quit drinking. I am not kidding.

Yes, I had to block my own brother on facebook. Really I don't know how we were raised in the same house. He's a birther among other things. I asked him nicely to stop posting his nonsense on my wall, but he couldn't help himself. It was a very sad day for me. Once my mom and dad are gone we will probably not see each other much. Which is sad, I do love him.

I agree about Santorum being a nut job. How many kinds of scary is it that he is a serious candidate? Many many kinds to me.

[ygmir]

[ygmir]

I actually know a Santorum supporter. He likes the "moral values" stance. We are old friends, and have hidden each other on FB. He used to be an intelligent man, but his brain turned to religious goo when he quit drinking. I am not kidding.

Yes, I had to block my own brother on facebook. Really I don't know how we were raised in the same house. He's a birther among other things. I asked him nicely to stop posting his nonsense on my wall, but he couldn't help himself. It was a very sad day for me. Once my mom and dad are gone we will probably not see each other much. Which is sad, I do love him.

I agree about Santorum being a nut job. How many kinds of scary is it that he is a serious candidate? Many many kinds to me.

there are hijinx afoot.......Santorum is no more viable, than Jesse Jackson was, way back when........he'll get about the same amount of following, in a general election, and the PTB know it.
He's out there, for some sort of strategy, that no one knows, yet.

right Jeb? I know you read eplaya..........

[lemur]

THE SANTORUM CAMPAIGN IS A COMMUNIST PLOT: DO NOT TRUST

[ygmir]

THE SANTORUM CAMPAIGN IS A COMMUNIST PLOT: DO NOT TRUST

in that the commies would rather have Barry stay, I'll agree!!!

[Lassen Forge]

Its simple, really...

Last time Evil Mitt (not to be confused with Mitt of Evil - that is Apokiliptika Candidate) ran, people bashed him about his conservative religious stance. Remember Kaiser Wilhelm Maher and the Magic Underwear Campaign?

How to defuse that perception Mitt is conservative religious zealot? Stir some Santorum to mix. He IS so far out on nutball stance he makes Romney look like a flacking MODERATE.

They want said fair headed boy in magic underwear (sorry, tip of hat to Comrade Maher) to win. They NEED him to win. THAT'S the end game. Why? Because he can be counted on to keep game started 30+ years ago in action for those who own our country. There's your strategy.

Everything else - The Canine and Equine Exhibition going on - is propaganda worthy of Apokiliptik Ministry of DisInformation.

Be as it may - the Republican Party went TARFU from about time Evil Capitalist Dictator (Reagan) sold out to (im)moral Majorityless, and became tool for his cabinets big oil business cronies, which made it big business to become powerful politician. I still remember when Republican Party had fringe element like nutcases presently running (with exception of one), but was geared toward small businesspeople, pulling up self by bootstraps, etc... True, they also had Birch John Society - but as was said, they were FRINGE then, rather than mainstream now.

Dr. Paul - would shake shit up in RP. The world would not end were he elected, no worse than did it to end when Obama was elected. Or when they killed DADT. This is truth. The Republikan Powers fear him because it would to DESTROY their power base they have worked hard on developing since Reagan... from seeds planted during Ike and his #1, Nixxon. Why is Paul so disdained? Because Power Brokers in RP are marketing him as a dangerous fruitcake to protect their interests (see big business and professional politicians above).

YOU are being manipulated by the GOP power structure... because THEY don't want boat rocked. And they thank you for your support.

IF you believe Paul is the worst fugging choice since Maddox, there is good chance you are influenced by billions spent by his own party to make him look like fringe nutball. And your Oil Business Politicians thank you for supporting them.

[lemur]

[Stephendragonfly]

In the election I will very likely be writing in Mickey Mouse for President. The is an outside chance I might write in Daffy Duck, if the rumors about Mickey's affair with Micheal Jackson can be verified.

[Ugly Dougly]

You'd have a fucking shirt-cocker in the Oval Office?????

[lemur]

shirtcocking is liberating.

[ygmir]

You'd have a fucking shirt-cocker in the Oval Office?????

[stinkyfoot]

You'd have a fucking shirt-cocker in the Oval Office?????

Can we just change from Democrats and Republicans to Shirtcockers and Non-Shirtcockers.

[Lassen Forge]

You'd have a fucking shirt-cocker in the Oval Office?????

Can we just change from Democrats and Republicans to Shirtcockers and Non-Shirtcockers.

I heard that campaign is looking for Office Interns... One of the supposed benefits is you end up holding a wad of bills afterwards...

[knowmad]

If voting changed things, it would have been made Illegal long ago; or, at least as heavily regulated as Firearms or the formation of Militias.

Vote for Vermin Supreme!!!!
A free pony for every one!!!!

[International Incident]

From the perspective of a non-American, Ron Paul would be a disaster for the rest of the world. We need America to play a role in the UN, on climate change and in the IMF. Just a proportionate role. Not an interventionist one (like Bush). But carry a fair share.

[knowmad]

[theCryptofishist]

If voting changed things, it would have been made Illegal long ago; or, at least as heavily regulated as Firearms or the formation of Militias.

Much as I'd like to join the SparklePonyParty, I can remember that both in Florida 2000 and in Ohio 2004, there was voting that might have made a difference in a battleground state...
But besides that, the continuing attempts at voter suppression indicate that there is enough power in the practice that it's worth manipulating turn-out.

[knowmad]

If voting changed things, it would have been made Illegal long ago; or, at least as heavily regulated as Firearms or the formation of Militias.

Much as I'd like to join the SparklePonyParty, I can remember that both in Florida 2000 and in Ohio 2004, there was voting that might have made a difference in a battleground state...
But besides that, the continuing attempts at voter suppression indicate that there is enough power in the practice that it's worth manipulating turn-out.

Brought to you Via a Political system that was put in place to keep the powers in the hands of rulers no mater how one votes. the Electoral collage is a mechanism that makes a tool out of people when you vote. A sparkelpony will talk and criticize and explain why. an anarchist does.
Fuck politics and the horse it rode in on. and pity the fool that still believes that "there is no other way!"