PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul Now Has 20K Volunteers



Laisrean
August 4th, 2007, 11:06 PM
http://www.roguegovernment.com/news.php?id=3330


In a radio interview today on the Dale Williams Show, Jeff Greenspan, Western Regional Campaign Coordinator for the Ron Paul campaign made an astounding announcement that the Paul camp now has more than 20,000 registered volunteers. Mr. Greenspan stated "I don't know any campaign in history that has had that many volunteers." Against the will of the mainstream media, this unbelievable amount of support is showing that Ron Paul's campaign is transparently evolving into a social movement. Later in the show, a caller asked why the main stream media is ignoring Ron Paul. Mr. Greenspan stated that there is a clear bias against the Paul campaign by mainstream pundits. He gave the example of the last Republican debate where Fox News did a CELL PHONE POLL. Before and during the poll, Sean Hannity explained at length how this poll would be scientific. Alluding to previous internet polls where Ron Paul had dominated, Sean Hannity quickly recanted his claims that Fox's cell phone poll was scientific when all of a sudden Dr. Paul again began to receive more votes than any other candidate. Mr. Greenspan also stated that Ron Paul is now third in terms of campaign dollars among his Republican counterparts and the contributions are growing at an enormous rate.

It would be hillarious if he wins the GOP nomination and then see Neo-Cons like Hannity endorse Hillary Clinton instead. :lol:

Wicce
August 5th, 2007, 04:23 AM
I've seen everyone from white supremacists (and this was BEFORE he became the only member of the House to vote against a bill supporting companies that wish to end contracts with Sudan's government due to Darfur) to left-wing liberals fawning over this man. I suppose it is because of the shock and awe of a politician who actually stands up for what he REALLY believes in. However, I would not vote for him. As much as I believe he wouldn't attempt to legislate many of those opinions from the White House, he still holds many opinions that sharply differ from mine and he acts out these opinions by means opposite Bush's tactic of appointing conservative Justices...Ron Paul opposes the Supreme Court's ability to set precedant on matters of birth control, abortion, homosexuality and other family matters and consistently introduces legislation to make all Court decisions on those matters null and void (AKA overturning Roe vs. Wade, Lawrence vs. Texas, etc.)

Laisrean
August 5th, 2007, 11:09 AM
I've seen everyone from white supremacists (and this was BEFORE he became the only member of the House to vote against a bill supporting companies that wish to end contracts with Sudan's government due to Darfur) to left-wing liberals fawning over this man. I suppose it is because of the shock and awe of a politician who actually stands up for what he REALLY believes in. However, I would not vote for him. As much as I believe he wouldn't attempt to legislate many of those opinions from the White House, he still holds many opinions that sharply differ from mine and he acts out these opinions by means opposite Bush's tactic of appointing conservative Justices...Ron Paul opposes the Supreme Court's ability to set precedant on matters of birth control, abortion, homosexuality and other family matters and consistently introduces legislation to make all Court decisions on those matters null and void (AKA overturning Roe vs. Wade, Lawrence vs. Texas, etc.)

In other words, what you're saying is he believes in strict adherence to the constitution. Isn't it better to have principles than do what is politically expedient?

Besides that, overturning Roe v Wade doesn't make abortion illegal, it just leaves that to the states to decide. Some might then move to ban it, but blue states wouldn't. That's how this nation's government was set up to be. The federal government was only meant to have a few minimal functions outlined in the constittuion, but everything else was meant to be left to the states or to the people. Nowhere in that document does it say that abortion is an issue for the federal government to be involved in...

Wicce
August 5th, 2007, 01:15 PM
Besides that, overturning Roe v Wade doesn't make abortion illegal, it just leaves that to the states to decide. Some might then move to ban it, but blue states wouldn't. That's how this nation's government was set up to be. The federal government was only meant to have a few minimal functions outlined in the constittuion, but everything else was meant to be left to the states or to the people. Nowhere in that document does it say that abortion is an issue for the federal government to be involved in...

The constitution was implemented to begin with to strengthen the federal government. it was the articles of confederation, the predecessor to the constitution, that was written with a weakened federal government in mind. Nowhere in the constitution does it mention abortion at all, or a right to privacy; it was interpreted by those who believe the constitution is a living document, not one set in stone for perpetuum. the Court interprets the laws we already have, which the states already have as well, which is different. this is not a body of politics like Congress. The supremacy clause provides for all law stemming from the constitution to trump states' rights.


Article 6 of the Constitution:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Ron Paul simply doesn't understand the importance of the Court because he is an elderly white man. The Supreme Court has been the protectors of minorities and women for decades now. If it were not for the Court I would bet money that segregation would still have been legal in a few states up until the mid 80s. if you are arrested for a crime you haven't committed, the Supreme Court is the body that provided you your Miranda rights and a constitutional right to a court-appointed attorney (which, by the way, is not in the constitution either. it was interpreted from the "due process" statement in the 5th Amendment and by "right to counsel" in the 6th Amendment. but you don't hear people decrying that, because it directly benefits them.)

I think the court should be weaker, there ought to be a term limit instead of life...but to stab it in the side and call it a day is a slap in the face to all those who benefitted from it's aid when the majority vote was constantly leaving them violated and voiceless. It is not a coincidence that in the 1960s saying you were for states rights directly implied you were against racial integration.

Laisrean
August 5th, 2007, 02:20 PM
Ron Paul simply doesn't understand the importance of the Court because he is an elderly white man.

Now I understand where you are coming from and why you hate him...

pawnman
August 5th, 2007, 02:42 PM
Is he officially running? I saw quite few supporters with booths and more volunteers passing out flyers at the Riverwalk in San Antonio last weekend. I'd vote for him.

Wicce
August 5th, 2007, 03:01 PM
Now I understand where you are coming from and why you hate him...

Uh...I don't hate him. When did I say that? I think I was very specific on my admiration for his refreshing amount of political courage. You don't want to respond to what I say because it's easier to zero in on one comment then infer some other opinion that I never implied at all? You took that completely out of context from the next statements, which were about the supreme court spending the last 50 years fostering rights for minorities and those outside the power structure. In that context my statement is valid and not a slur on his age or ethnicity.

Dark Phoenix
August 5th, 2007, 03:21 PM
While I respect Ron Paul for holding to his beliefs in the political world, I'm not sure I would vote for him but it would be interesting to see what would happen if he won the nomination.

There was an article on Yahoo(edit: http://www.examiner.com/a-861401~Ron_Paul_Remains_Longshot_for_GOP_Nom.html) news that despite being the longest on longest of long shots he has been able raise three million dollars which is a lot for an underdog. Of course not Obama raised 40 million or so in one quarter but he's the golden boy.

Laisrean
August 5th, 2007, 04:17 PM
Is he officially running? I saw quite few supporters with booths and more volunteers passing out flyers at the Riverwalk in San Antonio last weekend. I'd vote for him.

Yeah, but the MSM is trying to ignore him and hope he will go away.

There was a thread posted by Snapdragon not too long ago revealing he has been receiving more private donations from the military than any other candidate. And then consider that he has been the top searched candidate on Google (I don't know if he still is though). He's doing very well for someone the MSM refuses to talk about.

Bill Maher and Colbert had him on their programs a few times, though. Maybe some others, too...

Laisrean
August 5th, 2007, 04:44 PM
Uh...I don't hate him. When did I say that? I think I was very specific on my admiration for his refreshing amount of political courage. You don't want to respond to what I say because it's easier to zero in on one comment then infer some other opinion that I never implied at all? You took that completely out of context from the next statements, which were about the supreme court spending the last 50 years fostering rights for minorities and those outside the power structure. In that context my statement is valid and not a slur on his age or ethnicity.

But you infer that his age, race, or gender make his views on abortion and other court related issues less valid than others, and I disagree. Besides that, you will also find young black women who support his position, probably not many I'll grant, but why even bring up his race, age, or gender?

If you read what he has said on abortion you'll find that he doesn't actually support it being banned. He opposes it on a personal level, but he acknowledges a ban will accomplish nothing.

I suppose he does want Roe Vs. Wade overturned, but there are two things to keep in mind with that: 1.) if he somehow became president he still couldn't overturn that. All he could do is appoint new justices if one retires or dies, but even then there is no guarantee it would be overturned. 2.) Even if Roe Vs. Wade were overturned, that would NOT automatically make abortion illegal anywhere. It would just make it a state issue and I'm sure some would move to ban it, but others wouldn't.

Also, why do we make abortion the deciding issue in every election? I understand some have strong emotions on it either way, but aren't there other issues to talk about? Aren't there other freedoms to defend? Ron Paul has been a stronger advocate of freedom than anyone else, in my opinion. He is the only GOP candidate to oppose a national I.D. card, national spying program, torture, and drug prohibition. He also supports the right to bear arms and wants to eliminate the income tax.

That's something, right? So yeah, on a personal level he doesn't approve of abortion, but he wouldn't ban it and he wouldn't have the power to ban it anyway. But he does support many other freedoms that other candidates (particularly among the GOP) do not support.

Wicce
August 5th, 2007, 05:16 PM
Also, why do we make abortion the deciding issue in every election?

Abortion is not my deciding issue. I mentioned far more than abortion that the Supreme Court covers in my post, and focusing more on what I said abortion reveals more about your inclination to zero in on it than mine.



But you infer that his age, race, or gender make his views on abortion and other court related issues less valid than others, and I disagree.

As I said before, relegating the astounding progress the Supreme Court made on racial issues in a period of time when the majority in many states would have gladly consigned black people to secondhand citizenship forevermore to "other court related issues" shows more about how you feel about abortion being a flashpoint than me. In the context of a greater discussion about how important the Supreme Court has been towards minorities in recent history and how the concept of states' rights at one point was a de facto way of saying "I support segregation", a candidate from a conservative southern state who fits his party's mold entirely and grew up in that era cannot and should not escape scrutiny about how much that experience has biased him.


I don't hate Ron Paul and we share some of the same views, but I don't have to praise him equally along with criticizing him in order to feel my opinions have been well-stated. I should be able to offer my opinion on what I dislike about him without being told I hate him, and I do not need to cover everything I like about him to cover what I dislike.