I can't think of any reason not to, exept that you can't vote!
He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.
He is honest.
He isn't corrupt, and never will be.
He is the champion of the Constitution.
He is best for America.
2007-12-20 05:30:36 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
I am voting for Ron Paul.
He is the only hope for America.
And to the ignorant fool who called Ron Paul supporters "mindless sheep"? I think it is hilarious considering that all the neo cons and the democrats are all wanting us to be mindless sheep - Ron Paul is the only one who wants to educate us on what really goes on!!
2007-12-20 06:17:44 · answer #1 · answered by Kelsette 3 · 5⤊ 2⤋
As far as Ron Paul goes in his run for presidency. im a true democrat and believe strongly that republicans spend every moment of there lives planning and stratigizing how to take money from the poor and mostly middle class and give it to the rich.
this years candidates are mostly rich bums(oxymoron) on both sides. this year, the democrat candidates running are theives and hacks are not pleasing my democratic mindset. the rebuplicans had one canidate that really stood out to me. John McCaine related to me through military service. i liked John McCaine until i figured out that that he seriously supported the war and i even saw a video where he wanted to go to war. It depressed me to hear that i was going to vote for a leader who wasnt even smarter than i was about Iraq.
I started to listen to Ron Paul and i like some of his ideas. im going to try to break some down. the more and more i look the people who have posted to this talk about guns first. So far Ron is consistent. it proves one good thing about Ron, "he sticks to his guns".(pardon the pun) This is the only republican idea i support. yes, not only are guns in the bill of rights but there part of society.
if you think back to the revolutionary war days, "Why would the founding fathers want guns legal.... for everyone?" first america had no army. america wanted an economy out of guns, jobs for making guns and the most important a standing army. america could put up a defense if everyone had a gun for the "blinding reasons". self protection, hunting and survival and a hidden reason... fun. So why do we have guns today? the same reasons the founding fathers had. If ever invaded everyone has a gun for country defense, self protection, a tool for survival and fun. the economic part the founding fathers may have thought of is almost erased. Winchester has been around since the 1800's and all the factories have moved to Japan for cheap labor. there quality has lacked for the last couple years.
as population grows in the united states there will be a need to reduce guns but for the next 30 years i dont see why we cant have guns in unpopulated areas such as iowa.(where i live) but in places such as New York, Las Vegas and Los Angeles is a whole different idea and should be handled by the state which Ron Paul brings up on his usual constitution talks.
just listening to Ron talk brings up things that i know will not come true. education will never get better, the budget might be less but it will never be balanced or gain surplus income and ron also mentions that he wants civil liberties, which are long gone since the 60's. On a overall review dont believe anything the government tells you, dont watch and believe media and try and think for yourself in relation with others around you. the government is close to captilism with a blend of hipocrisy and nobody can be sure if anyone, even Ron Paul can save it.
2007-12-20 18:47:05 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I really like his message and I think he's the perfect protest vote. As far as the plausability of some of his ideas at this point in time I'm a bit concerned in that businesses these days are not small like they were when the constitution was developed and they are ruthless and can't be trusted to do what's best for America, it is their own fault that they need policing. If we we're to all take care of ourselves by investing in the market we'd be at the mercy of these cons without recourse if we used Ron Paul's plan. It is the free market that has made for the most crooks in our society not the citizens who are at the mercy of corporations. I like the idea of getting out of other countries and quit giving them aid for doing what we want them to do militarily. And I like the idea of securing our country, that should be a no brainer! He's against giving up our right to privacy too, people have no idea where that can lead and they should be worried. Anyway if no viable 3rd party candidate comes forward I may just have to write in Dr. Paul, because I don't think he'll get the nomination and if he does he will probably have an accident(CIA) style.
2007-12-20 13:56:34 · answer #3 · answered by Ktcyan 5 · 4⤊ 2⤋
Heck Yeah!
He is the only person qualified for the job!
He practices what he preaches!
Unlike other politicians, he doesn't practice the "Nanny State" mentality. He believes people are capable to make their own decisions. I hate big government. Government should serve the people, not people serving the government!
For those too stupid to look beyond party affiliations to see a individuals honesty, then your just another media-dribble eating sheeple. Get educated.
As for gun laws, gun ownership is not a crime. It is a freedom, a responsiblity to be enjoyed. I, myself have never owned a gun but I understand the snowball effect of laws on legal gun ownership (it starts with no guns and before you know it we're goose-stepping and saluting our leaders).
Gun laws DO NOT AFFECT CRIMINALS, only law abiding citizens. Criminals don't obtain guns by legal means, so laws pertaining to legal ownership don't apply to them. We have a right to bare arms.
Gun laws are part of that "Nanny State", "protect yourself from yourself" mentality that as Americans we must be VERY careful of who we vote for. Unfortunately Democrats do have a tendency to back socialist ideas along those lines.
Go Ron!
2007-12-20 14:42:09 · answer #4 · answered by handlebar knocker 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Why the **** not? With that statement, maturity and experience and intelligence speak for itself. It's statements like this that prove all you young folk are just throwing your money away while you're sending good 'ol ron smiling all the way to the bank, because your donations aren't tax deductable. It doesn't matter how much money they have, it's the quality of backing and political support behind them that matters. Remember, when all this is said and done, it's always the silent majority that pulls the rabbit out of the hat. Fools, just like lemmings to the sea.....
2007-12-20 15:02:52 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Ron Paul has raised more money in the fourth quarter than any other presidential candidate. The average donation was $100. He is a man of the people and therefore cannot lose.
2007-12-20 14:35:17 · answer #6 · answered by grick57 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I personally believe that he is the best but i think that its too late to him to catch up
I hope my prayers are answered and he becomes president because we need somebody like him in the White House
2007-12-20 15:36:34 · answer #7 · answered by **Georgia Peach** 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I endorse Ron Paul BECAUSE he has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
2007-12-20 14:24:50 · answer #8 · answered by anon 1 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Yes
2007-12-20 14:28:32 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
I live in a Closed Primary State and I'm not a Republican.
Oh and "He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership."
No one *needs* an AK-47 to hunt deer or ducks or wild turkeys or elk or rabbit or any other food source.
2007-12-20 13:52:36 · answer #10 · answered by An Episcopalian+Anglican 3 · 4⤊ 4⤋