Ron Paul rejects the 2 party system,

Ron Paul rejects the 2 party system, (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

pahunkboy -> Ron Paul rejects the 2 party system, (9/10/2008 8:36:25 AM)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7608500.stm He encourges votes to a 3rd party candidate. I intend to follow thru on his prompt. He claims there is very little difference in the 2 parties. I agree. / we got suckered election after election... so ...what is the answere? Nothing will change unless we make it change.

subrob1967 -> RE: Ron Paul rejects the 2 party system, (9/10/2008 9:10:39 AM)
They why is he still registered as a Republican?

kittinSol -> RE: Ron Paul rejects the 2 party system, (9/10/2008 9:13:12 AM)
I will quote Bethnai from another thread: quote: Fuck Ron Paul.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Ron Paul rejects the 2 party system, (9/10/2008 10:05:31 AM)
So you are saying that he is incorrect about the two party system or that you are physically attracted to him?

kittinSol -> RE: Ron Paul rejects the 2 party system, (9/10/2008 10:12:56 AM)
I'm surprised you ask - isn't he quite obviously a complete babe [8\|] ?

NeedToUseYou -> RE: Ron Paul rejects the 2 party system, (9/10/2008 11:22:54 AM)
Yes, this country needs, a serious third, fourth, and fifth party.

CallaFirestormBW -> RE: Ron Paul rejects the 2 party system, (9/10/2008 11:35:17 AM)
Did anyone here even bother to watch the campaign acceptance speeches for both candidates -and- Ron Paul's speech at the Rally for the Republic and the evening discussions at the Independent Citizen Caucus? I did... all four of them... all the way through... and BOTH vice presidential candidate's speeches. If folks -had- watched all of these, I wonder how many would still be questioning whether we need more options than our current two-party, carefully manipulated "election" process provides. CFB

pahunkboy -> RE: Ron Paul rejects the 2 party system, (9/10/2008 12:10:57 PM)
The main media HATEs his movement and what he stands for. Obama caught my attention -- but then he made comments/ mannerisms that told me he is "more of the same". Ron Paul is about "less empire". Obama and McCain = "more empire" so anyone who considers a 3rd party is now fringe. I think this is a good move. All 50 states likely will have more then D and R to choose from...but not all 50 will necessarily have Paul, Barr, Green or what have you. Look at Polosi. Look what she ran for...all the Dems.. they were going to "change"...and it has been 2 years... so what "change" have they done?? nothing. Being that we are so entwined in bail outs, and business as usual-- let both parties wonder of these "fringe" Ron paul and other voters are going to give the election to the other party. Both want endless empire..an endless bail outs for Wall Street. The election is once again a 24 hour, info-mercial. with the product being about as useful as an infomerical gadget.....

Thadius -> RE: Ron Paul rejects the 2 party system, (9/10/2008 2:08:52 PM)
Is Ron Paul going to accept the offer from Bob Barr? In case you missed it, the Libertarian Party offered to replace their VP nominee with Paul if he chose to run with them.

pahunkboy -> RE: Ron Paul rejects the 2 party system, (9/10/2008 2:58:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Thadius Is Ron Paul going to accept the offer from Bob Barr? In case you missed it, the Libertarian Party offered to replace their VP nominee with Paul if he chose to run with them. Gosh, I dont know. I plan to vote - as I want it tabulated that I so. I dont like the electronic machines, so I plan to request a paper ballot. Then- I plan to not "approve" of either the Dem or the GOP. ....no matter what I plan to continue writing/contacting congress over issues that are important. This year- that happens maybe 1 per month. Granted I am just 1 person... but if hundreds of thousands contacted congress monthly... maybe they would learn that they work for me/you, and not Wall Street.

lazarus1983 -> RE: Ron Paul rejects the 2 party system, (9/10/2008 3:09:21 PM)
No matter what your feelings on Ron Paul are, he does make a valid point. I have and always will vote third party.

MrRodgers -> RE: Ron Paul rejects the 2 party system, (9/10/2008 3:19:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol I will quote Bethnai from another thread: quote: Fuck Ron Paul. People, you forget...look, just look who has lived in the white house for almost the last 8 years. Almost and just about ANYBODY...would have been much better. There are constitutional standards now for POUS...only. If Ron Paul had been pres. these last 8 yrs...we'd be a WHOLE lot better off now and...a whole lot more of us would be alive.

Slavehandsome -> RE: Ron Paul rejects the 2 party system, (9/10/2008 3:35:55 PM)
It seems very myopic to think that there's a difference between any of the corporate candidates, then and now. H.W. Bush left NAFTA on Clinton's desk, which Clinton promptly brought to Congress, which promptly a Republican Congress passed. Meanwhile the Cold War's end promised an era of peace (less money for guns and a perpetual arms race) but immediately those shareholders went to work and came up with a solution to counter an era of peace. Fortunately, for those shareholders, that era of peace is behind us now, and we should all "feel" safer knowing that our war machine is back in high gear. One upgrade of the new wave of high gear, is that we're now incorporating the privatization of the military, which is bringing an Earth-breaking record of public money transferred into private corporations' hands, all in the name of Defense. ..."Defense"... Not only are our tax-funded lobbyees allowing U.S. corporations to screw the labor pool here, which is one reason the U.S. dollar is stuffing into the toilet, but we're spending that big military budget on private corporations who are quickly moving offshore (Haliburton, Titan, CACI, KBR over to Dubai) so that they won't have anybody holding their office accountable. In case we here in Collarme weren't aware, KBR is charging $100 PER SINGLE LOAD, PER SINGLE SOLDIER for a week's worth of laundry. Soldiers aren't allowed to hand wash their own, and they can't double up with another soldier either. What happened to the Quartermaster? "H.Q. says that'll no longer be necessary". How patriotic is that? Oh, I forgot, that corporation isn't American. Hmmmm Oh well, back to work....

SilverMark -> RE: Ron Paul rejects the 2 party system, (9/10/2008 4:28:42 PM)
Congressman Paul would have to be on one of the 3 existing tickets for anyone to vote for him. It would be impossible for him to be on the ballot at this late date otherwise. Barr is closest in mindset to Paul and a strong believer in the "Fair Tax".

Bethnai -> RE: Ron Paul rejects the 2 party system, (9/10/2008 5:00:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SilverMark Congressman Paul would have to be on one of the 3 existing tickets for anyone to vote for him. It would be impossible for him to be on the ballot at this late date otherwise. Barr is closest in mindset to Paul and a strong believer in the "Fair Tax". Therefore, making it a mute point.

cloudboy -> RE: Ron Paul rejects the 2 party system, (9/10/2008 5:02:30 PM)
The electoral, winner-take-all college pretty much limits the US to a two party system. Votes to the green or libertarian parties are pretty much throw aways. Perot who won 28% of the vote had zero to show for his efforts in the end, other than energizing the national debates. I still remember that my mom voted for him.

rulemylife -> RE: Ron Paul rejects the 2 party system, (9/10/2008 5:17:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pahunkboy The main media HATEs his movement and what he stands for. Obama caught my attention -- but then he made comments/ mannerisms that told me he is "more of the same". Ron Paul is about "less empire". Obama and McCain = "more empire" so anyone who considers a 3rd party is now fringe. I think this is a good move. All 50 states likely will have more then D and R to choose from...but not all 50 will necessarily have Paul, Barr, Green or what have you. Look at Polosi. Look what she ran for...all the Dems.. they were going to "change"...and it has been 2 years... so what "change" have they done?? nothing. Being that we are so entwined in bail outs, and business as usual-- let both parties wonder of these "fringe" Ron paul and other voters are going to give the election to the other party. Both want endless empire..an endless bail outs for Wall Street. The election is once again a 24 hour, info-mercial. with the product being about as useful as an infomerical gadget..... I agree with almost all but I don't understand how you think the media is to blame. I watched Blitzer interview Paul and Nader today and ,I might have missed it, but I didn't see him seething with hatred toward either of them.

Thunderbird56 -> RE: Ron Paul rejects the 2 party system, (9/10/2008 5:23:47 PM)
Good to hear that there are some open minds and active brains here. Too few people understand that "Democrat" and "Republican" are simply different sides of the same coin. We've been flipping that same coin for over 50 years and the results are always the same. Heads we lose ... Tails we lose. The upper echelons of both parties don't really care which side has the White House or the majority in the congress and senate. Sure, they'd like to hold power, but they don't really care as long as it's one of them. Because if it's one of them, even the "loser" will have some power and the chance to have the most again in the future. If a 3rd party becomes strong and viable it will break their decades long "dual monopoly" and it will be harder to "cut deals" and maintain their exclusivity. Vote 3rd party.

Termyn8or -> RE: Ron Paul rejects the 2 party system, (9/10/2008 5:41:06 PM)
Another thing politicos do bipartisanly is invest in defense contracors. Collectively they have about $196 million invested. This is according to the AFP, so I can't just give you a link. Some do not control all their investments directly, but they of course get reports and they know. Not that someone shouldn't be allowed to make money off their investments, but the question is whether or not it influences their votes etc. Some of them sit on a committee, and have quite a bit of control over such things as defense appropriations. Just how much money do you think they want to cost themselves ? Even our beloved Ron Paul has an agenda I don't like, concerning abortion. The bill he introduced was nothing less than an attempt to thwart the ruling of the supreme court. That is a lawfully and legally selected group empowered to officially interpret the Constitution. Like their rulings or not, this is the law of the land. Add to that the court challenges would cost a bundle. Where does that money come from ? So much for fiscal responsibility. That said, I still beileve that Ron Paul would make the best President, when compared to the two main contenders. Maybe his firm convictions made him try something so unrealistic. Maybe he though it his duty somehow. Maybe he was wrong. T

DedicatedDom40 -> RE: Ron Paul rejects the 2 party system, (9/10/2008 5:48:28 PM)
I believe Ron Paul deserves respect for being the only Republican candidate since Reagan to attract a sizable following of democrats along with those republicans who were disgusted with what the conservative movement has erroneously become. I think if you added up the accomplishments of Nader for however many times he ran, it doesnt compare to what Ron Paul did this time around On the down side, it was a shame that so many of the conspiracy nuts flocked to him in a way that discredited his movement. [Mod Note: images removed]

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125