I watch Morning Joe this morning. All the pundits were touting Romney as the candidate that would give Obama the most trouble. The media LOVES establishment candidates. They know with Romney, even if he wins, his is still a member of the oligarchy and the current power structure will remain uninterupted.
Your right Cicero, don't you find it funny though how you see zero support for him when talking to people. He has no grassroots movement, I never seen one yard sign or bumper sticker, it's like he only shows up in the polls as a leader. Who are these supporters, do they actually exist, I don't buy it that he is in 1st place. I'm starting to really question how honest are elections really are.
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
Here is another poll with Paul ahead, notice where Romney is at. Paul and Obama are neck and neck while the others are way down. http://www.2012horserace.com/
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
Many here who would have voted for Ron Paul in 2008 are still supporters today. Likewise, those who supported Mitt Romney in 2008 might still support him now for the 2012 election.
In the 2008 primary: McCain 46.5%, 31 states Romney 22.1%, 11 states Huckabee 20.8%, 8 states
With McCain and Huckabee out of the race, may of their voters would likely vote for Romney.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
I just amazes me how folks on the left and the right b**ch about government control, based on their ideology. The left sees their ideology of freedom differently than the right. Hence causing a divide in the electorate. aka two party system!
CLEARLY......voting for Ron Paul gives both the left AND the right freedom and liberty to ALL! There would be no divide! It would be a win/win for everyone! And sadly this is what the media's propped up two party system is trying to derail and silence!!!
Hey you lefties and righties that want your liberties and freedoms...........VOTE RON PAUL!!!
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
Hey you lefties and righties that want your liberties and freedoms...........VOTE RON PAUL!!!
IF you want your liberties and freedoms gained by the Civil Rights Act of '64... DON'T vote for Ron Paul!
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
The Trouble With the '64 Civil Rights Act by Ron Paul Recently by Ron Paul: More Blank Checks to the Military Industrial Complex
On June 4, 2004, Congress hailed the 40th anniversary of the 1964 Act. Only the heroic Ron Paul dissented. Here are his comments.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.
This expansion of federal power was based on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The framers of the Constitution intended the interstate commerce clause to create a free trade zone among the states, not to give the federal government regulatory power over every business that has any connection with interstate commerce.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business's workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge's defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.
Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H.Res. 676.
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
IF you want your liberties and freedoms gained by the Civil Rights Act of '64... DON'T vote for Ron Paul!
Liberties gained? Hahahahahahahahahaha...That's too funny. Every time a white person disagrees with Obama's policies they are labeled a racist. If you believe in limited government - you're a racist. There is no topic of debate you can have with a liberal, without them immediate pigeonholing you as a racist. It is a continued weapon of the left to divide the people. Liberals constantly use class and race as wedge issues to win elections.
Paul's description of the results of the 1964 Civil Rights Act as "a Balkanization", is the best description yet.
Ron Paul's view of Civil Rights is nothing new... It's been used since the beginning of our country to prevent "All Men Are Created Equal" from happening.
For all those who look at the Civil Rights Act as unnecessary or illegal... Soon White Americans will be in the minority... and the Civil Rights Act may be all that protects their rights from being taken away by the new MAJORITY.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Ron Paul's view of Civil Rights is nothing new... It's been used since the beginning of our country to prevent "All Men Are Created Equal" from happening.
All men are created equal, doesn't mean all men have equal skills, talents or abilities, it mean they are all equally free to use their talents, and not restricted by government.Government racial quotas for businesses to hire merely based on the racial demographics of the surrounding area isn't liberty.
Should there be a lawsuit filed against the NBA for not showing a diverse workforce that represents the American racial demographic?
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
Wow Henry thanks for posting an amazing video. : ) That video should be shown on all major news netoworks, allthough we know thats not going to happen, only Judge N would have the guts to show it.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Logged
