Ron Paul Supporters Are Taking Over the Republican Party

405 Responses




Likes(0)Dislikes(0)
Processing your request, Please wait....

405 responses to “Ron Paul Supporters Are Taking Over the Republican Party”

  1. MrSamadams35

    if he dosent write him in.. we need everyone to write him in

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  2. MrSamadams35

    if he dosent write him in.. we need everyone to write him in

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  3. seatedabove

    we are writing in Ron Paul for president 2012. we live in ma and already have Romney forced health care/crap who is going to repeal Romney care ?.Obama is a pro-abort baby Killer,

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  4. rickrusselljr

    3:38

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  5. alameda1212

    Is Rachel "Dyke" Maddow a little upset at what is happening on the Republican side vs her Lib side? Why???? Because Ron Paul has a larger voice on the "Right" that frightens her?

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  6. emmit127

    Sure, all that's left is to sell your soul.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  7. oregonmeds

    "Harm Ron Paul in any way and we will kill you."
    I bet that is the zombie apocalypse. False flag killing of their inside straight man to touch off a revolution then we loose... He could then come back later "ressurected" supposedly by dna or aliens or fake jesus... We need to see that we are being played from every angle. Think Rowanda, it was the assasination of the popular candidate... All the world is but a stage and the men and women merely players... Anyone not unplugged from the matrix.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  8. ComeAndGetMeScum

    I am an idiot too, can i get a job in u.s. news ?

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  9. funkymonkey1930

    "Stay away from Ron Paul. I endorse Mitt Romney for GOP candidate in 2012."
    - Barrack Obama

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  10. PigCapitalist

    "...which is basically the question i answered."

    No, you didn't. You answered that there was no way to keep them from using their money, not how he would keep them from controlling government with their capital.

    "...whether or not he openly condones bribery."

    No, his own position on bribery is irrelevant vis a vis the repercussions of his economic ideals (which is what I'm interested in).

    But, please do go on and pretend you've actually proven something.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  11. TodayProgression

    Obama deported more illegal Immigrants than any other President (and many people support his actions) and the unemployment among certain minority groups who are US citizens is 11% which is horrible and Obama should actually help people instead of trying to garner votes, and, on top of that, people are starving all over the country, what I can't understand is why US citizens would vote for this man when all he wants to do is win reelection. Dont vote.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  12. chang343343

    so basically you were asking how corporations would control govt using money to as the influence, which is basically the question i answered.

    but even if you insist on playing with semantics, it really doesnt make a difference unless youre basically asking in a veiled way whether or not he openly condones bribery

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  13. lowe1304

    He did win in every category. He is the front runner but you will never know. Just like we Americans are stupid to believe the media reports. All the elections are fixed to put the candidate of choice to keep the system as is. CORRUPT !!!!! Obama was put in office for a reason. Americans needed a face of change, But he was just as bad as Bush. We have no one to stand with the people but ron Paul.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  14. PigCapitalist

    "that was your correction to my question in your post..."

    Are you reading what you're writing? That correction is completely consistent with the way I've been framing the question since the beginning. Here, I'll break down that correction for you:

    "With control via the influence of their capital".

    Notice the word "control" precedes the word "influence". The former, in that sentence, is the end, the latter the means. I'm accepting the latter and ask how he would avoid the former.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  15. chang343343

    ""...will end up with complete control over the government..."
    With control via the influence of their capital."

    that was your correction to my question in your post about 7hrs ago

    cant answer your question if you keep changing what youre asking, not that that distinction makes any clarification as to what youre trying to say anyway

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  16. PigCapitalist

    "since you obviously..."

    I'm not the one having trouble here. I didn't ask how Paul would keep corporations from using capital to INFLUENCE govt., I asked how he would keep them from CONTROLLING (as in dominating) govt, since they posses most of the capital. Notice the difference there (hint: See the words in full caps)? Notice how you've misrepresented my question once again?

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  17. PigCapitalist

    "since you obviously..."

    I'm not the one having trouble here. I didn't ask how Paul would keep corporations from using capital to INFLUENCE govt., I asked how he would keep them from CONTROLLING (as in dominating) govt, since they posses most of the capital. Notice the difference there (hint: See the words in full caps)? Notice how you've misrepresented my question once again?

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  18. chang343343

    ^*neither

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  19. chang343343

    since you obviously have difficulty with comprehension, ill attempt to put my answer in even simpler terms (hopefully for the last time): paul, nor any one person, has the power to keep corporations from using money to influence the govt, and that theres nothing he could really do to stop corporate lobbying in govt. that is the duty of the people to vote out elected officials who act in their own interests

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  20. veradinx

    Meanwhile Romney is lucky to get 75 supporters that aren't his staff or secret service at any one of his rallies...

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  21. PigCapitalist

    P.3

    I'm not overestimating anything. It's clear to anyone that capital makes or breaks almost everything in govt. I mean, even Paul-fans complain of that fact. I'm not seeking a simple answer (which you seem to be so keen on giving), I'm seeking an answer to the question I've posed since the beginning. If there's anything clear here is your inability to answer the question without misrepresenting it or saying that limited government limits.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  22. PigCapitalist

    P.2

    I've read your replies and none of them have answered the question I've been asking since the beginning. The closest you got was 16 hours ago and even then you ignored a key component.

    You can continue to act as if I'm being vague and as if you've proven something, but our conversation is there for anyone to see.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  23. PigCapitalist

    P1
    "i've answered your vague question in almost every possible way..."

    Every possible way except the one that is clearest, i.e. the way which I've asked it. The first time you addressed my question (1 day), you did so with irrelevant empty rhetoric about how, "limited government" limits people. Then (17 hours ago) you strawmanned me saying I was claiming corporations shouldn't have a say in govt; 16 hours ago you asked if I meant corp. would control government (ignoring the role of capital).

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  24. chang343343

    2/2
    on the other hand, you continue to overestimate the power of lobbying, while underestimating/ignoring the power of the democratic process

    by now its obvious that you seek a simple answer, a president that would magically solve corp/govt corruption on his/her own, and all i am saying is that there is no such thing as a simple solution to government no matter how appealing it might be

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  25. chang343343

    1/2
    "Precisely, it was simple, which is why I said you danced around the issue."
    i've answered your vague question in almost every possible way in which you could mean it to be, so if you still fail to understand/ignore my answer then i cant really help you with that.

    "You can choose to ignore its effects if you like."
    i never denied the role of money in politics, which is obvious if you actually read my reply

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  26. PigCapitalist

    P. 2 of 2
    "...you greatly exaggerate its role".

    No, I haven't. We see everyday. Money makes or breaks causes, legislation, elections, etc. You can choose to ignore its effects if you like.
    "...it is the responsibility..."

    Yes, but that does not mean that the deck should be stacked against them to begin with, which is what I'm trying to establish with asking. Once more: How would Paul keep corporations from controlling govt, given that they have most of the capital?

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  27. WTFShawski

    Only Paul

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  28. PigCapitalist

    P.1 of 2
    "i gave you a simple yes or no..."

    Precisely, it was simple, which is why I said you danced around the issue.

    "...your argument is based on the assumption..."

    It's not an assumption that capital influences government to a greater extent that votes do. It's happens every day. I don't accuse his administration of being worse or better than others on this point, I ask to establish if there'd be a qualitative difference between his and the status-quo (when it comes to this point).

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  29. chang343343

    2/2
    im not denying the fact that money can influence govt, this is an obvious fact, but at the same time you greatly exaggerate its role. Ultimately, we live in a democratic-republic, where policies are determined by demo-elected representatives, and at the end of the day there is a responsibility for the public to vote out those that only act in their interests. this would act as a "natural" counterweight to the capital of the "few"

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  30. chang343343

    1/2
    i gave you a simple yes or no answer along with an explanation, yet you accuse me of "dancing around the issue"

    also you accuse me of using "empty rhetoric," yet your argument is based on the assumption that corporations would for some reason have more influence with their money on govt in a paul administration than in anyone else's.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  31. PigCapitalist

    P.2/2

    You continue to ignore the role of capital in government. If you limit government generally, corporations are not (quantitatively) equally affected by the limitations as would be individual citizens given that at any point the former has more capital than the latter.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  32. PigCapitalist

    P.1/2
    "...there is no...way of keeping corporations from using their money to influence govt..."

    Again, you're dancing around the issue. My question wasn't, "how will he keep them from using their money?", but, "how would he keep them from controlling (as in dominating) govt. given that they posses most of the capital?".

    "...limit the scope of govt so that 'corporations' are limited..."
    Again, empty rhetoric. This presupposes corporations are equally affected by limitations as are individuals.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  33. chang343343

    2/2
    that said, the libertarian solution to excessive capital influence is to limit the scope of govt so that "corporations" are limited to the extent by which they can use money to have "control" over others via govt, since govt is the only entity permitted to exercise force in a capitalist society

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  34. chang343343

    1/2
    "With control via the influence of their capital."
    in this case the simple answer is no, there is no realistic way of keeping corporations from using their money to influence govt since lobbying has always been a legitimate part of the political process. certainly no one is saying paul is some sort of messiah out to fix all political problems in america, but it isnt like this would be a problem particular to the paul administration

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  35. PigCapitalist

    "...will end up with complete control over the government..."

    With control via the influence of their capital.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

1 6 7 8 9 10 12

Leave a Reply