Two Plus Two Newer Archives - ***Official Ron Paul video thread***

Two Plus Two Newer Archives (http://archives1.twoplustwo.com/index.php)

- Politics (http://archives1.twoplustwo.com/forumdisplay.php?f=43)

- - ***Official Ron Paul video thread*** (http://archives1.twoplustwo.com/showthread.php?t=406077)

Re: ***Official Ron Paul video thread***

I'm amused at how offended libertarians are at Sean Hannity. Lberals have known for a decade that Hannity is a douche.

However, I'm excited that people who never really cared about politics are getting behind Ron Paul. I've said before that I was surprised at the disparity between libertarian thinking in the internet and poor vote totals. If all it took to correct this was the right candidate to get behind, great.

Re: ***Official Ron Paul video thread***

Where can we get recent polling results for the general population? I've heard people say he's under 1% now but what would the odds be that Ron Paul would be able to get up to over 10% of the Republican nominee votes? It will be interesting to see how much, if any, the buzz on the internet translates to actual votes in the real world. I've never really followed something like this before so I don't know if there has been a precedent.

Re: ***Official Ron Paul video thread***

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_pol...tial_candidates

This appears to be a decent summary of recent polls.

Re: ***Official Ron Paul video thread***

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Did anyone catch RP on CNN this morning? Anyone know if it's been uploaded yet?...

[/ QUOTE ]

link
http://ronpaul08.blog-city.com/ron_p...tion_video.htm

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, I have a real crush on Ron Paul.

Re: ***Official Ron Paul video thread***

Does anyone know if democrats are starting to like ron paul?

Re: ***Official Ron Paul video thread***

Switch party affiliation from Libertarian (or none) to Republican in order to vote for Paul in primaries?

Re: ***Official Ron Paul video thread***

[ QUOTE ]
Switch party affiliation from Libertarian (or none) to Republican in order to vote for Paul in primaries?

[/ QUOTE ]

In GA, we have open primaries, so no need to even switch. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

Re: ***Official Ron Paul video thread***

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmwDH-Ynung

speech at fundraiser on 19th.

Re: ***Official Ron Paul video thread***

[ QUOTE ]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmwDH-Ynung

speech at fundraiser on 19th.

[/ QUOTE ]

He really needs to stop umm-ing and err-ing. As we have already seen, the delivery is so important. If he would just add in pauses and say complete sentences it would make such a HUGE difference. Someone in his campaign needs to tell him.

Re: ***Official Ron Paul video thread***

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmwDH-Ynung

speech at fundraiser on 19th.

[/ QUOTE ]

He really needs to stop umm-ing and err-ing. As we have already seen, the delivery is so important. If he would just add in pauses and say complete sentences it would make such a HUGE difference. Someone in his campaign needs to tell him.

[/ QUOTE ] http://www.orlyowl.com/Bush_ORLY.jpg

Re: ***Official Ron Paul video thread***

lol. Delivery is important when you're trying to convey concepts that are hard for the electorate to understand, like: "When we bomb people, it makes them angry." When you're spouting the same old placating bromides you can deliver them like the jibbering moron pictured. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: ***Official Ron Paul video thread***

[ QUOTE ]
He's generating a tremendous amount of buzz. It won't translate into success in the polls though because the pollsters are constructing the polls to marginalize him.

[/ QUOTE ]
How do they do that?

Re: ***Official Ron Paul video thread***

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Bill Maher called Dr. Paul his hero tonight after his performance in this weeks debate. He also called out Chris Dodd for distorting what he said in the debate in an interview with him.
Maher said he wanted to get Paul back on his show and I'm guessing he will get treated better this time around.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's the link for that section of Maher's show

I love how Maher actually smacks down Chris Dodd when he also tries the straw man attack on Ron Paul.

Of course, Maher still isn't going to like RP's position on healthcare and education but at least he's backing him up on the foreigh policy front.

[/ QUOTE ]
'Of course this was fox news, republican canidates, Southern carolina audience, you got the perfect storm of stupidity."

lol!

lol, i'm guessing it was a 2p2er who posted "Ron Paul FTW!", in the comments, who was that?

Re: ***Official Ron Paul video thread***

[ QUOTE ]

lol, i'm guessing it was a 2p2er who posted "Ron Paul FTW!", in the comments, who was that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of the thousands who've seen it, why would you think the one who posted that was from here?

Re: ***Official Ron Paul video thread***

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

lol, i'm guessing it was a 2p2er who posted "Ron Paul FTW!", in the comments, who was that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of the thousands who've seen it, why would you think the one who posted that was from here?

[/ QUOTE ]
A lot of libertarians post here, "FTW" to my knowledge isn't too popular of a phrase outside of message boards, it's a recent comment,

Re: ***Official Ron Paul video thread***

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

lol, i'm guessing it was a 2p2er who posted "Ron Paul FTW!", in the comments, who was that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of the thousands who've seen it, why would you think the one who posted that was from here?

[/ QUOTE ]
A lot of libertarians post here, "FTW" to my knowledge isn't too popular of a phrase outside of message boards, it's a recent comment,

[/ QUOTE ]

Hollywood squares FTW!!!1!

Re: ***Official Ron Paul video thread***

[ QUOTE ]
whats FTW?

[/ QUOTE ]

for the win?

Re: ***Official Ron Paul video thread***

Candidates like Ron Paul are good for the system. I don't agree with him on some things but he brings up issues for discussion that many mainstream candidates shy away from and unfortunately IMO your every day voter doesn't find much interest in. You go Ron Paul [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

Re: ***Official Ron Paul video thread***

http://ronpaul08.blog-city.com/ron_p...stin_video.htm

The good doc on the war on terror and weed.

Re: ***Official Ron Paul video thread***

[ QUOTE ]
Switch party affiliation from Libertarian (or none) to Republican in order to vote for Paul in primaries?

[/ QUOTE ]

I've done it. At the very least if Ron doesn't win the primary then when it comes time to voting you will have one more republican who voted for the libertarian candidate. That should send a strong message.

I trust the rest of the libertarians to pick a decent candidate that I can stand behind. If I can get Ron Paul put on the Republican ticket then the "libertarians" actually have a chance to get into the White House.

I can always switch party affiliations back again. But I think almost all libertarians that have to choose should switch to vote for Ron Paul. Hell, even some Dems might come over. Ron Paul is a man of all the people!

Re: ***Official Ron Paul video thread***

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He's generating a tremendous amount of buzz. It won't translate into success in the polls though because the pollsters are constructing the polls to marginalize him.

[/ QUOTE ]
How do they do that?

[/ QUOTE ]

They often ask about the big three or four and then have a category for "other". So the question would be "would you vote for Rudy, John, Mike or other?" See places like this: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo.../national.html

Re: ***Official Ron Paul video thread***

Ok, this isn't a video, but this is the most active Ron Paul thread, and I didn't want to start another one.

Somebody with FOX NEWS actually sided with Paul over Giuliani.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,274174,00.html

Re: ***Official Ron Paul video thread***

Is "U"sama Bin Laden the same person as Osama Bin Laden?

Re: ***Official Ron Paul video thread***

Yes, it is a different transliteration of the same name. IMO I think it's more correct.

Re: ***Official Ron Paul video thread***

Ok, so this isn't a video, but apparently the Michigan GOP has dropped any contact info from their website. Here is an article about it:

The Michigan GOP has removed their contact information from their web site, no doubt due to an angry response stemming from the head of the Michigan GOP Saul Anuzis saying that he would try and bar Ron Paul from participating in future GOP debates. This just shows how cowardly these people are.

It is disgraceful that the Michigan GOP is run by Saul Anuzis an establishment hack who doesn't care about the will of the people or free speech.

Michigan GOP Leader Wants Ron Paul Banned From Debates

Visit the web site here and click on their contact link and you'll see the page is missing.

We were able to get the Michigan GOP contact information off of Google. Call the Michigan GOP at 517-487-5413 or fax them at 517-487-0090 and let them know how pissed off you are at these anti-American trash that have infiltrated the GOP.

Also call the RNC at 202-863-8500 or fax the RNC at 202-863-8820. This is serious business and it is time to take action.

http://www.roguegovernment.com/news.php?id=2132

Re: ***Official Ron Paul video thread***

Don't worry about this anymore. Word from the legislation forum is that the Michigan guy gave up on removing Paul. On top of this, the interviews Paul has been getting recently show that the press, which actually makes the decision, are interested in Paul. Don't worry about this.

Re: ***Official Ron Paul video thread***

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, this isn't a video, but this is the most active Ron Paul thread, and I didn't want to start another one.

Somebody with FOX NEWS actually sided with Paul over Giuliani.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,274174,00.html

[/ QUOTE ]

from the article: "No one knows precisely what morbid formula inspired the Sept. 11 attacks." - this is wrong - bin laden stated why he hated us in his dec. of war according to scheuer (who Dr. Paul quoted earlier in one of his interviews post-debate) in imperial hubris.

finally somebody in the mainstream media/political world is saying why they did it - which is why the poster in the other paul thread is wrong when he says that paul is good for a republican. imo, if you think our nat. security is a major issue in the election, he is the only choice.

Re: ***Official Ron Paul video thread***

Here is a huge archive of articles Ron Paul has written:

http://lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html

(Not videos but I dunno if I can post anywhere else without getting censored.)

Re: ***Official Ron Paul video thread***

[ QUOTE ]
Here is a huge archive of articles Ron Paul has written:

http://lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html

(Not videos but I dunno if I can post anywhere else without getting censored.)

[/ QUOTE ]

What an excellent collection! Thanks for posting.

Re: ***Official Ron Paul video thread***

[ QUOTE ]
Don't worry about this anymore. Word from the legislation forum is that the Michigan guy gave up on removing Paul. On top of this, the interviews Paul has been getting recently show that the press, which actually makes the decision, are interested in Paul. Don't worry about this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, he gave up on excluding only Ron Paul. That was too obvious; now he wants to exclude everyone but Rudy McRomney.

Re: ***Official Ron Paul video thread***

May 22, 2007

Congressman Ron Paul will speak on foreign policy tonight on the U.S. House floor around 9:00 p.m. ET. The schedule for special-order speeches can change with little notice, but the schedule now shows around 9:00 p.m. ET. Floor speeches are broadcast as part of C-SPAN's regular coverage of the House floor.

Re: ***Official Ron Paul video thread***

[ QUOTE ]
May 22, 2007

Congressman Ron Paul will speak on foreign policy tonight on the U.S. House floor around 9:00 p.m. ET. The schedule for special-order speeches can change with little notice, but the schedule now shows around 9:00 p.m. ET. Floor speeches are broadcast as part of C-SPAN's regular coverage of the House floor.

[/ QUOTE ]

very good speech about a half hour long, hope its on you tube for those who missed

Re: ***Official Ron Paul video thread***

Someone I know posted this. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: ***Official Ron Paul video thread***

[ QUOTE ]
heh I missed it.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's ok. I'll have it up on YouTube soon.

Re: ***Official Ron Paul video thread***

Ok, so this isn't a video at all, but here are the remarks made by Ron Paul when the first draft of the UIGEA came up for passage in the House. I am adding it here to show what a friend he is to poker.

Congressional Record, House of Representatives, July 11, 2006

Ms. HOOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).

(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation. It is not easy to oppose this legislation because it is assumed
that proponents of the bill are on the side of the moral high ground. But there is a higher moral high ground in the sense that
protecting liberty is more important than passing a bill that regulates something on the Internet.

The Interstate Commerce Clause originally was intended to make sure there were no barriers between interstate trade. In this
case, we are putting barriers up.

I want to make the point that prohibition, as a general principle, is a bad principle because it doesn't work. It doesn't solve
the problem because it can't decrease the demand. As a matter of fact, the only thing it does is increase the price. And there are
some people who see prohibitions as an enticement, and that it actually increases the demand.

But once you make something illegal, whether it is alcohol or whether it is cigarettes or whether it is gambling on the Internet,
it doesn't disappear because of this increased demand. All that happens is, it is turned over to the criminal element. So you won't
get rid of it.

Sometimes people say that this prohibition that is proposed is designed to protect other interests because we certainly aren't
going to get rid of gambling, so we might get rid of one type of gambling, but actually enhance the other.

But one of the basic principles, a basic reason why I strongly oppose this is, I see this as a regulation of the Internet, which
is a very, very dangerous precedent to set.

To start with, I can see some things that are much more dangerous than gambling. I happen to personally strongly oppose gambling.
I think it is pretty stupid, to tell you the truth.

But what about political ideas? What about religious fanaticism? Are we going to get rid of those? I can think of 1,000 things
worse coming from those bad ideas. But who will come down here and say, Just think of the evil of these bad ideas and distorted
religions, and therefore we have to regulate the Internet?

* [Begin Insert]

H.R. 4411 , the Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act, should be rejected by Congress since the Federal Government
has no constitutional authority to ban or even discourage any form of gambling.

In addition to being unconstitutional, H.R. 4411 is likely to prove ineffective at ending Internet gambling. Instead, this bill
will ensure that gambling is controlled by organized crime. History, from the failed experiment of prohibition to today's futile
``war on drugs,'' shows that the government cannot eliminate demand for something like Internet gambling simply by passing a law.
Instead, H.R. 4411 will force those who wish to gamble over the Internet to patronize suppliers willing to flaunt the ban. In many
cases, providers of services banned by the government will be members of criminal organizations. Even if organized crime does not
operate Internet gambling enterprises their competitors are likely to be controlled by organized crime. After all, since the owners
and patrons of Internet gambling cannot rely on the police and courts to enforce contracts and resolve other disputes, they will be
forced to rely on members of organized crime to perform those functions. Thus, the profits of Internet gambling will flow into
organized crime. Furthermore, outlawing an activity will raise the price vendors are able to charge consumers, thus increasing the
profits flowing to organized crime from Internet gambling. It is bitterly ironic that a bill masquerading as an attack on crime will
actually increase organized crime's ability to control and profit from Internet gambling.

In conclusion, H.R. 4411 violates the constitutional limits on Federal power. Furthermore, laws such as H.R. 4411 are ineffective
in eliminating the demand for vices such as Internet gambling; instead, they ensure that these enterprises will be controlled by
organized crime. Therefore I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 4411 , the Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act.

* [End Insert]