John McCain is clearly focused on one thing and one thing only – WAR. He lives for it, he loves it, he’s obsessed by it, it is his entire identity. He is a Post Traumatic Stress, hot-headed and unstable egotisitcal lunatic who cares nothing about the will of the American people. He is loyal to his big corporate backers and his backers make a killing off of war, war and more war.

In his own words, “Friends, I want to give you some straight talk. Friends, there are going to be more wars. I’m sorry to tell you, but there are going to be more wars…”. Wow. Interesting Foriegn Policy approach there, John. Glad to know our tax money will be used wisely.

After 2004 it became apparent to me what I had been trying to forget after the 2000 election, that much of America is just not paying attention. It would be foolish to assume that this time around they have turned off “American Idol” and are really going to think this one through. McCain appeals to fear coupled with Amerian imperial arrogance. McCain, like Bush before him, can win. We cannot let that happen.

Unfortunately Hilary Clinton represents the exact same special interests that McCain does. They should run on the same ticket. Actually, come to think of it I take that back. Hilary Clinton represents Hilary Clinton. McCain represents those corporate interests that can most benefit by America expanding it’s empire through military aggression.

There is only one serious contender who is sane and that is Ron Paul. He did not support the invasioin of Iraq. He did not support NAFTA, amnesty for illegal aliens and he did not suppor the Patriot Act. He has consistently kept his campaign promises for each of the 10 terms he has served in the United States Congress.

Barack Obama will likely be our next President. I feel he is a good man and I would take him over McCain any day. However, this is not a Socialist country. We need to get back to the values of the Founding Fathers and the ideas put forth in the Constitution. The Ron Paul phenomenon is the beginning of a much larger and far-reaching revolution in America.

John McCain is a huge step in the wrong direction. He and his Neo-Con allies have hijacked the country and the time has come for us to take it back.

Someone who speaks in straight talk doesn’t have to keep reminding you that it’s straight talk. They just speak the truth.

As for me, I’m voting for Ron Paul.

http://www.BELLofLIBERTY.com

- Eric Allen Bell

Prove that Jim Hillhouse’s statement is “loaded with baseless assumptions and vague language.”

And if you don’t believe that Ron Paul is isolationist, why don’t you give us DETAILS on his Iraq plan and timetable. (Note- “immediately” is not a plan.) And what he plans to do about the thousands of new jihadists that Bush and the Republicans have blundered into creating in Iraq?

So, how’s the view from the rock you’ve been hiding under since you fled from the discussion over at “Ron Paul to emerge as “folk hero of this election”? (A far more honest title would be “One Stripper for Ron Paul Talks a Lot But Can’t Give One Concrete Example About ‘How Would America Be Different If Ron Paul Were President’ Other Than Vague Yapping About Smoking.”)

http://thespinfactor.com/thetruth/2007/08/28/tucker-ron-paul-to-emerge-as-folk-hero-of-this-election/

Not only did Sand FLEE the discussion there when the facts came in, but he whined that I did not answer his questions ONE DAY AFTER HE ASKED! LOL!

Sand “Freddy, I’m surprised you didn’t comment on what I wrote.”

Well Sand, it’s been OVER TWO WEEKS that you have FAILED to answer the facts there. That’s a lot longer than one day. How do you justify your apparent hypocrisy?

Or does Ron Paul support mean never having to deal with facts?

That statement is loaded with baseless assumptions and vague language.

“Ron Paul’s isolationism didn’t work in the 20th century and its worse in the 21st.”

Ron Paul is not an isolationist.

We have no choice but to shoulder this burden. Bush and the Republicans perverted that ideal with their imperial delusions for Exxon and the Saudis. But Ron Paul is no better, with his vague notion that we can pull out of Iraq completely and instantly.

The reality is that only the Democrats can have a hope of solving this mess. Just like in 1992 (another Bush, what a coincidence).

Paul is perhaps a tactical thinker. But wars are not won on the tactical level–we would have won Vietnam were that the case–but are won on the strategic level. And strategically, America’s withdrawal militarily would only insure that we re-assert later and in bigger numbers. You can’t go back in time.

A vote for Paul is a vote to put a Dem. in the White House.

How in the world can you guarantee that?

Your reasoning is faulty. If military personnel were so reticent to say what their occupation was (certainly not my experience), then those who contributed to Ron Paul would be similarly reticent and he’d have a lot higher number in that category. The fact is, military are not at all reticent about saying who they work for. Likely that category is low for Ron Paul because he knows as an outside-the-establishment candidate he cannot accept such money because he will be dinged for it, while establishment candidates are let slide on such regulations. (They probably have lots of PAC contributions there. PACs don’t contribute to Ron Paul because he doesn’t carry water for them in Congress.)

Because he will remove the federal income tax, you know the 10-35% of your work you give to the FED that give it to wallstreet to rich bankers.

and because he will get the troops home, from middleeast, europe and south korea.

I liked Obama, Hillary and Rudy until i found out that important parts of their actions do not support what they are saying.

Fx.
Rudy, indirectly killed 121 firefighters on 9/11
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Rudy+Giuliani+firefighters

And have other scandals on his shoulders:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ic0_J55WzVw

i cant vote for a man like that. he dont deserve my vote.

I did not know much about Obama until i saw this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5h95s0OuEg
That video is porbaly his main video on youtube describing his policy.

The problem about the video is, that he dont say anything specific at all! He dont talk about his policy. He just talks about, his family, about how corrupt the media is, how biased it is, how beautiful i am as an individual (asslicking) (and he dont even know me) and at last he say he wants to reveal his policy in year 2008. And i say if you dont have a policy now you wont have a policy in year 2008 its as simple as that.

And he things its okay to bomb pakistan with a nuclear weapon and sacrifice civilians lives if their is terrorists there, the problem is what? Pakistan is an ally of the USA. It would be like attacking Canada with a nuke if their was terrorists their. I dont think it is a good idea, and i dont help this countries reputation and support from the rest of the world. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wb711Dnwf5c

I dont like Hillarys policy, first because i saw the movie sicko where it was told that hillary among many others was bribed by lobbyists to not suggest the universal healthcare system so they could continue to reap benefit, and she was payed a little over 800.000 dollars to not mension universal healthcare.

And she voted yes for increase in spending in the Iraq war even though she say she is against the war!
Its like saying something and doing something else, because when you increase the spending you surely increase the war. So i find Hillary contradictionary and phony and not worthy to be president of the USA. Her biggest asset is that she is a women, something new, something people belive will bring the country together, but it wont help because her policy is not different from most of the others. Its the presidents policy that is important not the president.

The only prooven anti-war is Ron PAUL. He’s the only one also to promise to help ease the suffering of the soldiers hurt in combat.

I think your method “Phreadom” blog used is entirely faulty. Looking at the totals for “no employer was supplied” for Ron Paul and Obama/Clinton/Romney we get the real story. I put this in the format of “no-employer” of “total non-committee contributions” for the Quarter.
To me all you find is that Paul is better at gathering employment data from his contributors.
Only $100 of all of Paul’s contributions this quarter came from people who didn’t specify an employer. Where as the other candidates i looked at are in the millions for that category. I guarantee a lot of military folks are covered under that label. Most of us in the military do not actively associate our military lives and political lives. It is discouraged and with good reason.

Paul
$100.00 of $2,364,328.41

Obama
$11,645,363.26 of $32,904,746.57

Clinton
$2,125,251.11 of $26,720,346.30

Romney:
$2,740,696.85 of $13,917,800.57

Pete

Anti-war:
Ron Paul 26.23% (R)[near-Libertarian; Navy support]
Barack Obama 24.02% (D) [50% more from Army than Ron Paul]
Hillary Clinton 11.08% (D)
Bill Richardson 5.59% (D)
John Edwards 2.63% (D)
Joe Biden 0.84% (D)
Mike Gravel 0.16% (D)
Dennis Kucinich 0.05% (D)
Chris Dodd 0% (D)

Pro-war:
John McCain 18.31% (R)
Mitt Romney 4.05% (R)
Rudy Giuliani 2.44% (R)
Mike Huckabee 1.84% (R)
Tom Tancredo 1.63% (R)
Duncan Hunter 1.05% (R)
Sam Brownback 0.07% (R)
Tommy Thompson 0% (R)
Jim Gilmore 0% (R)
John Cox 0% (R)

Now add these up. What do you find?

70.6% of the money donated to Presidential campaigns by US troops went to candidates who oppose the war and favor bringing US troops home. Think about that.

In dick Cheney’s eyes, do they “hate the troops”? Or do they know something that we don’t know, that the mainstream media did not report for five years, and that even most Democratic politicians are afraid to state publicly?

As far as the donators stat, it was from a blog by Andrew Sullivan. So it could be wrong…but so could the above stats.

And I think RP has made enough friends (Tucker, Mahyer, etc.) that this will get out enough that the mainstream *can’t* ignore it (no show likes to get upstaged).

Of course, the mainstream media will probably ignore this, as they do most everything else, so Ma and Pa middle America will never know about these stats.

Again, this is a good stat for Ron Paul, but not a super-fantastic stat. The media has been saying that RP is not in touch with the war, but a substantial number of soldiers are donating to RP; in fact, they are out-donating soldiers for other candidates.

So not only is there a substantial *quantity* of RP-supporting soldiers, the *quality* of donations is fantastic…and very telling of how they support RP.

The point is that the founding fathers NEVER wanted seperation a belief in a higher power (God) and state. They did not want to have a religious organization controlling the laws. Tricky people played with words and boom the ’separation of church and state’ movement came about.

This ’separation of church and state’ movement was actually a backdoor movement to destroy the concept of any religion or spirituality (including having a higher power) as a basis for making laws…this weakened the validity of ALL laws, thus weakened the soveignty of the USA. It was a solid step toward the creation of horrible laws like those that destroyed Russia and cleared a path for political efforts like amnesty, NAFTA, North American Union, and the New World Order.

Ron Paul is for having laws backed by divine rights…and so am I. He is no where near trying to convert the nation into Christianity…hello? He’s an Ayn Rand enthusiast…she’s the ultimate atheist.

To the founding fathers, Ron Paul, me, and many more, it is extremely rational to believe in a higher power…that some of our rights come from that…thus some of our laws and principles are based from those rights.

Looks like the jig is up…take your mainstream media and shove it, globalists!

I’m not sure what his stance is now, but this is one of the few, if not the only, area(s) where I have a problem with his stance.

He does not want to introduce religion into government. He represents a constitutionalist movement that seeks a separation of church and state among other things.

You must be thinking of Fred Thompson.

No way to Ron Paul.

From:

http://www.iraqslogger.com/index.php/post/3609StateSide:News
Quarterly Reports Indicate Paul Raised More From Military Than Other Republicans
07/16/2007 4:24 PM ET
ExcerptsBut a closer look at the reports [Ed:see the statistics below] …