Processing your request, Please wait....
Ronald Reagan and Ron Paul
Ronald Reagan: "Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country."
Ron Paul in the Air Force
Ron Paul is a proud Air Force veteran. He served as a flight surgeon in the U.S. Air Force from 1963 to 1965 and then in the U.S. Air National Guard from 1965 to 1968. During his military service Ron Paul spent time on the ground in Iran, Pakistan, South Korea, Turkey, Ethiopia and other countries.
Ron Paul is very popular with the military. He receives more donations from active duty military personnel than all other Republican candidates combined.
Ron and Carol: Married for 56 Years
Ron Paul has been married to his wife Carol Wells since 1957. They have five children: Ronald, Lori, Rand, Robert, and Joy. Paul's son Rand is the junior senator from the state of Kentucky.
 |
Romney was never a serious candidate. He was the greater of two evils put on stage so we “pick” the current white house monkey.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
An embarrassment to demorcay and honorable tradition
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You are doing the right thing mate
why be forced to vote and choose the lesser of two evils when you can make yo’re own decisions and use you’re free will
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You are doing the right thing mate
why be forced to vote and choose the lesser of two evils when you can make yo’re own decisions and use you’re free will
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The GOP dropped the ball BIG TIME when they decided to appoint their crooked rich boy Mitt Romney. If there was anybody *at all* that most people would’ve voted over Obama, it would have been Ron Paul. It’s too late now though, and Obama won. This is what happens when old rich bastards hijack your political party, they rather run it INTO THE GROUND unless they keep total control of it in favor of corporate interests.
»crosslinked«
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The GOP dropped the ball BIG TIME when they decided to appoint their crooked rich boy Mitt Romney. If there was anybody *at all* that most people would’ve voted over Obama, it would have been Ron Paul. It’s too late now though, and Obama won. This is what happens when old rich bastards hijack your political party, they rather run it INTO THE GROUND unless they keep total control of it in favor of corporate interests.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
R Paul is was cheated out of the nomination
1. Elected delegates replaced w Romney unelected ppl
2. Changed rules, 5 state min to 8 state so RP would not be nominated
3. Paul ppl not allowed to bring signs Romney ppl were
4. Boehmer ignored opposition vote
5. New rules allow RNC to choose delegates rather than the states
6. RNC announced Romney votes, Paul votes stated as OTHER
7. google : . Waldo County election fraud, RNC Fake delegate lists, RNC teleprompter
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
R Paul is was cheated out of the nomination
1. Elected delegates replaced w Romney unelected ppl
2. Changed rules, 5 state min to 8 state so RP would not be nominated
3. Paul ppl not allowed to bring signs Romney ppl were
4. Boehmer ignored opposition vote
5. New rules allow RNC to choose delegates rather than the states
6. RNC announced Romney votes, Paul votes stated as OTHER
7. google : . Waldo County election fraud, RNC Fake delegate lists, RNC teleprompter
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Romney vs. Obama = Giant Douchebag vs. Turd Sandwich
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Romney vs. Obama = Giant Douchebag vs. Turd Sandwich
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
If you’re going to have rules on delegates, you can’t change the rules in the middle of an election in order to be fair for all parties. There really shouldn’t be any rules on how delegates can be used. The states determine the delegates and who those delegates are to support for President. The states rights should be maintained, and not over-ruled by neither the RNC or the DNC.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
If you’re going to have rules on delegates, you can’t change the rules in the middle of an election in order to be fair for all parties. There really shouldn’t be any rules on how delegates can be used. The states determine the delegates and who those delegates are to support for President. The states rights should be maintained, and not over-ruled by neither the RNC or the DNC.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Yea, i suppose.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The disenfranchised Maine delegation eventually walked out of the convention chanting “As Maine goes, so goes the nation”. And they will be right! The nation will walk away from Romney & the corrupt GOP will face a huge defeat in November against Obama. Ron Paul supporters won’t vote for Romney. They most likely will vote 3rd Party.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Go back to your original question for the 4th time.
“exactly how is socialism better if you work for the gov”
The implication is for the current gov or which-ever country is in question. Again I assumed an intelligent question.
If you move to a country and want (in general) the best pay, benefits, support and future from a job. You may pick gov, vested business, or entrepreneur, based on if current priorities were socialist, fascist, or individual centric.
Make sense?
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Alright this is a stupid argument. I thought you were comparing different countries. Government workers are still treated better in the US than Venezuela, even though within Venezuela government workers are probably treated better than businesses.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I should be clear. Fascism supports VESTED business. That is, business that does its best to manipulate the gov to get what it wants. Any business outside this clique suffers as much as anyone else does.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Which socialist gov (that actually have preference to gov spending over others) do not have gov workers who are in better situations than the average individual or business worker?
Take Venezuela, it certainly is socialist. Average business there isn’t so hot. The best ones are foreign companies, who are at the mercy of the gov for their continued status. For local ppl there, the best jobs (on avg) are certainly with the gov.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The US is currently fascist leaning. Who do you think gets a bigger paycheck, better benefits and more freedom to do whatever they want?
People at the SEC, EPA, FDA, FBI, or people at Goldman Sachs, Monsanto, Lockheed Martin, and Haliburton? (Morality aside obviously)
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The US is currently fascist leaning. Who do you think gets a bigger paycheck, better benefits and more freedom to do whatever they want?
People at the SEC, EPA, FDA, FBI, or people at Goldman Sachs, Monsanto, Lockheed Martin, and Haliburton? (Morality aside obviously)
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
No, that’s simply not true. The US has some of the best treated government workers in the world. Are we socialist? No. There is absolutely no correlation. What you’re trying to say simply doesn’t exist in reality. Look at the world. The socialist governments simply DO NOT have the best treated government workers. Your just lying through your teeth. There is ZERO evidence to support your ridiculous theories.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I believe you are mistaking a label for actual preferences.
Bush labeled himself as a peace making president, did his actions make it so?
Many countries label themselves as socialist, communist etc. If you simply use these, they are meaningless. A country may call itself whatever it likes, but it’s preferences as seen by it’s actions determine it’s current leaning.
A country which spends most on gov is both acting socialist and generally better place for gov workers. (compared to others)
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
All I have to do is argue the simple stand-alone point that higher funding allotment doesn’t directly lead to better treatment.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
No, I was simply referring to what you said: “You asked why in a socialist environment would it be more beneficial to be in the government.” which is of course completely wrong. You seem to think why and how are interchangeable. Or you forget what you write. I’m simply pointing out the blatantly obvious fact that socialist governments do not necessarily have the best treated gov’t workers. It’s SIMPLY not true. What don’t you understand?
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This is simply for you. You have to argue the point that if some group has an actionable preference (despite what they say, they spend much more of their allotted money on individuals, business, or gov)
They will, at the same time, NOT spend more on that same item. So you’re arguing a contradictory point.
They could in the next moment change. That would mean their priorities would change and they’d be considered now something different.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What would happen in a poor socialist situation? What is the dependable means for improving things? Gov. Resources would be reallotted from business and individuals to gov via taxation and inflation. So which section would be growing and which shrinking?
Rich fascist, gov has enough to get by, which is more important? Vested business. Where does the extra money go if gov is at base maintainable levels? Vested business.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
How is the means by which something is done. Or have you changed the english language while I wasn’t looking? The means are people, preference and payment. Which part don’t you understand?
So either you’re asking an obtuse question, and want to understand HOW modern day money transfers are made. (which has nothing to do with socialism, and I assumed you more intelligent)
Or you are asking a how question in a why manner, (very common occurrence) such as “How come no girls like me?”
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Your not making any sense. As if allotment meant anything. Government employees can easily be treated better in a fascist regime than a socialist one. There can be a rich fascist regime and a poor socialist one. You couldn’t have failed any harder. You’re clueless. Go read a book or bang your head on a wall, you will absorb the same information either way.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You said that you answered why. I did not ask why, so therefore you did not know the question. Or do you want me to believe you knew I asked how and just chose to answer why? That’s retarded.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Preference for funding. Is it provable? Sure, simple logic. Is a fascist system which will allocate most money first and foremost to gov agents over business fascist? No you’d call it socialist. Imagine the US cut all subsidy and bailouts and nationalized instead. Would you call it fascist? All gov have some collections of funds. (even if some are small)
So in general, if you are in the field preference of that gov type you’ll get more of the allotment, which in turn is “better”.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I never used the word “understand” until now. I understood the question just fine. You want to break the question down into words?
“exactly how is socialism better if you work for the gov”
for who – The individual working for the gov
better – generally (on average) preferred over the inverse option. (not working for gov)
implying benefits. Which benefits? Money, or allocation of funding.
Now again the answer..
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You just admitted you didn’t even understand the question, and now you’re claiming you answered it? No, you didn’t answer it. Simply saying “priorities in a socialized system is gov.” doesn’t explain or prove shit. In fact, the only thing it does prove is your complete ignorance on the subject.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Same here man I’m not a republican either anymore as well its pretty sad that the GOP used to be an honorable party but not anymore unfortunately I personally agree with Jesse Ventura when he said he thinks that the 2 party system should be abolished I think it should be in my opinion.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Exactly how is socialism better if you work for the government?”
Read again. An answer is an answer even if you don’t like what it says.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I didn’t ask why I asked how, and you didn’t answer that question because one doesn’t exist.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0