Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

There are a few debates left before we get to the presidential debates.



I have searched the internet and found that

http://www.2012presidentialelectionnews.com/

is the best for: giving a quality video for the debates, listing all relevant information, and keeping the "reader" up to date with changes. That site also lists relevant polls.





If anyone finds anything better, definitely post it.

This thread is not to take away from other threads that may also be relevant. If you want to talk about or pick on a particular GOP candidate in an existing thread, definitely do so. I wanted this thread to focus on the debates. I did not think creating 18-20 threads for each debate, when each debate would only garner 5-10 posts, would be kosher or logical.

The last debate I have partially seen is the Iowa Thanksgiving Family Forum. I liked the relaxed and open atmosphere and presentation to the debate. I did not like the "churchiness" and the obvious pandering to the Christian demographic. It was almost gag-worthy but at least face-palm worthy. I understand the need to do so but it was just too damn fake.

I will post my remaining thoughts on it when I finish the video.

YU0q45c2BSc

Man, that Herman Cain knows good poetry when he sees it.

Full song:

http://www.tubechop.com/watch/238995

Ron Paul 2012.

Originally posted by King Kandy
YU0q45c2BSc

Man, that Herman Cain knows good poetry when he sees it.

Full song:

http://www.tubechop.com/watch/238995
At least he got the quote itself right.

Better than can be said for most politicians really.

I am surprised he memorized the whole song. Shame he doesn't seem to have such good memory on foreign policy...

Originally posted by King Kandy
I am surprised he memorized the whole song. Shame he doesn't seem to have such good memory on foreign policy...
Maybe the song was a mnemonic device that half-worked in the sense that he remembered it but didn't remember the concepts/info attached to it.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Ron Paul 2012.

Raul Pon 2201

Originally posted by Robtard
Raul Pon 2201
For that joke to work wouldn't it have to be 2102?

Lol, makes me think of the Simpsons episode where they broke into a Gay Republican meeting where the members handed out bumper stickers saying to vote for a "Gay Republican President in 2084" to which they commented "we're realistic"

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Maybe the song was a mnemonic device that half-worked in the sense that he remembered it but didn't remember the concepts/info attached to it.
My theory is that his speechwriters are pranking him. Someone told him that was the song from the 2000 Olympics.

My favorite was his response to Palin calling him the "flavor of the month". Cain said he was not a flavor of the month, but was like "Haagen Daz Black Walnut; a flavor with the real staying power". Unfortunately, they don't make Black Walnut anymore: it was a limited edition flavor of the month.

Originally posted by King Kandy
My theory is that his speechwriters are pranking him. Someone told him that was the song from the 2000 Olympics.

My favorite was his response to Palin calling him the "flavor of the month". Cain said he was not a flavor of the month, but was like "Haagen Daz Black Walnut; a flavor with the real staying power". Unfortunately, they don't make Black Walnut anymore: it was a limited edition flavor of the month.
Lol...maybe there really is a conspiracy trying to stop him from winning the nomination. dur

Michele Bachmann claims her foreign policy decision would be to close the US embassy in Iran. Except there isn't one.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/11/us-embassy-in-iran-michele-bachmanns-oops-moment/

Originally posted by King Kandy
Michele Bachmann claims her foreign policy decision would be to close the US embassy in Iran. Except there isn't one.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/11/us-embassy-in-iran-michele-bachmanns-oops-moment/ God, she's awesome.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Michele Bachmann claims her foreign policy decision would be to close the US embassy in Iran. Except there isn't one.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/11/us-embassy-in-iran-michele-bachmanns-oops-moment/
I had a long ass debate with my roommate regarding Iran and how our current policies are getting us nowhere.

He basically stonewalled me and asserted that Iran "cannot be reasoned with" to which I asked him what he proposed we do if not attempt to reach some kind of understanding/rapproachment.

He advocated military force, to which I replied that Iran would not go down like Iraq did and would be too large for us to occupy given how stretched we are at the moment.

His response...


...let Israel occupy them.


My response: it would take every man, woman, and child in Israel to subjugate a country the size of Iran if they could do it at all. Which would leave Israel itself open for attack.

Come to think of it that would be the best thing ever for the Arab countries: no more Israel and no more Iran.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Michele Bachmann claims her foreign policy decision would be to close the US embassy in Iran. Except there isn't one.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/11/us-embassy-in-iran-michele-bachmanns-oops-moment/

I'm quite ignorant of the US Embassy locations and even I knew that. Someone should tell her we don't have one in North Korea before it's too late.


Edit - She should probably review this link:

http://www.wheretogetapassport.net/us_embassy/2_us_embassies.html


And this link, too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_government_of_the_United_States



Originally posted by Omega Vision
I had a long ass debate with my roommate regarding Iran and how our current policies are getting us nowhere.

He basically stonewalled me and asserted that Iran "cannot be reasoned with" to which I asked him what he proposed we do if not attempt to reach some kind of understanding/rapproachment.

He advocated military force, to which I replied that Iran would not go down like Iraq did and would be too large for us to occupy given how stretched we are at the moment.

His response...


...let Israel occupy them.


My response: it would take every man, woman, and child in Israel to subjugate a country the size of Iran if they could do it at all. Which would leave Israel itself open for attack.

Come to think of it that would be the best thing ever for the Arab countries: no more Israel and no more Iran.

I think the solution is far simpler than that. Since there is a large portion of Iranians that do not wish to maintain the current government, you just have to get the government to surrender/abdicate their positions. Then make sure the people hold fair elections and be done with it. I want donuts.

Its always that easy. Maybe we should have a tupperware party for the heads and maybe they bow out. Sounds fun

Originally posted by Blacktoothgrin
Its always that easy. Maybe we should have a tupperware party for the heads and maybe they bow out. Sounds fun

It probably would be that easy, actually. If we actually planned it out like Mo-Fos, we could take out the majority of their government officials in the time span of a few hours: mass assassination.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I think the solution is far simpler than that. Since there is a large portion of Iranians that do not wish to maintain the current government, you just have to get the government to surrender/abdicate their positions. Then make sure the people hold fair elections and be done with it. I want donuts.

Thats sort of how they got the Shah in the first place...

Originally posted by inimalist
Thats sort of how they got the Shah in the first place...

Originally posted by King Kandy
YU0q45c2BSc

Man, that Herman Cain knows good poetry when he sees it.

Full song:

http://www.tubechop.com/watch/238995
Well, fittingly, Herman finally admitted to the source in his final speech.

1jV_11_q6Hc

I know how you can take care of Iran.

Instate a dictator in a country right next door (probably Iraq since it's now yours) to invade them...you know, get the banks to loan him lots of money would boost the economy as well, and then he could use that money to buy old shitty weapons you can't sell.

That way he'll be able to fight Iran, but can't fight you because he owes you money and you have better weapons anyway, and his country could need water supplies and construction services American corporations could sell him such as Halliburton and Bechtol.

However, you have to make sure he wins, otherwise Iran will get super pissed off (again) and Iraq might invade Kuwait. Which we dont want because the amount of oil the UK and the USA get from that country is not only the reason we're so powerful, but also the reason Iran is pissed off at us in the first place! If that happens, you might have to start Iraq all over again.

http://www.fakeshoredrive.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/kanye_west_amberrose.jpg http://homepost.kpbs.org/files/2011/01/Saddam-Hussein.jpg

Yo Saddam, Imma let yo finish, but Castro is the best dictator of all time!

http://i43.tinypic.com/14k8sx1.jpg

http://i40.tinypic.com/2gtri2g.jpg

http://i40.tinypic.com/elbcrr.jpg

http://i42.tinypic.com/f00ta9.jpg

http://i40.tinypic.com/154ix49.jpg

http://i42.tinypic.com/ogjpmp.jpg

http://i41.tinypic.com/14e1lvk.jpg

I'd give Ron Paul the Joker face, personally. Watching the world burn is literally his policy on foreign relations.

Isn't the world already burning overseas? Thanks to Obama of course. You seem confused.


Edit: Its as if every other candidate wants to start WW3

http://i41.tinypic.com/239ma.jpg




stoned

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Isn't the world already burning overseas? Thanks to Obama of course. You seem confused.

Ron Paul is the only candidate who is explicitly okay with genocide...

He is exactly of the "watch the world burn" mentality.

There's a huge difference between meddling and nation building and serving as a bulwark for democracy and an insurance policy against atrocities...damned if just about any politician (or the average American that I know of) understands it.

Ron Paul is the opposing vice to that of Santorum's "nuke everyone who doesn't roll over and beg for a treat" rhetoric.

My favorite Ron Paul poster.

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/515/ronpaul.jpg/

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Ron Paul is the only candidate who is explicitly okay with genocide...

He is exactly of the "watch the world burn" mentality.

I like your Evangelical Republican approach: lay on the falsehoods. You never struck me as such, though.

HYwtPbKPnn4

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Ron Paul is the only candidate who is explicitly okay with genocide...

He is exactly of the "watch the world burn" mentality.
Not really. In all cases, the Republicans would only interfere with genocide if it benefited American interests (this is true throughout American history; even the great FDR rejected the chance to interfere with the holocaust until it was politically beneficial to do so). I bet all of them are in favor of celebrating Columbus day even though his genocidal exploits are legendary. If anything, Paul has the most just policy of any of them.

Which doesn't say much.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Not really. In all cases, the Republicans would only interfere with genocide if it benefited American interests (this is true throughout American history; even the great FDR rejected the chance to interfere with the holocaust until it was politically beneficial to do so).

Paul was very clear that if he had been president he would never have interfered with Hitler's right to go through with the Holocaust.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I like your Evangelical Republican approach: lay on the falsehoods. You never struck me as such, though.

HYwtPbKPnn4

Actions speak louder than words. He has no interest in stopping genocide. He has no interest in purely symbolic measures to condemn genocide.

It's pretty simple: If you think the US should take a position opposing genocide, oppose Ron Paul.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Paul was very clear that if he had been president he would never have interfered with Hitler's right to go through with the Holocaust.
You know the holocaust was not the reason we entered WWII, right?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'd give Ron Paul the Joker face, personally. Watching the world burn is literally his policy on foreign relations.
Drink bleach.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'd give Ron Paul the Joker face, personally. Watching the world burn is literally his policy on foreign relations.

No, he's absolutely not. He may watch the world burn, but the point of the Joker is that he WANTS to watch the world burn, very different.

Ron Paul is nothing if not lawful, and the Joker nothing if not chaotic. Whether good, neutral or evil, now there we can have a conversation.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Actions speak louder than words. He has no interest in stopping genocide. He has no interest in purely symbolic measures to condemn genocide.

It's pretty simple: If you think the US should take a position opposing genocide, oppose Ron Paul.

Really, man? Really?

Cause he kind of explained his "actions" in the video that directly addressed the commonly touted Evangelical Republican criticism (something I get to hear quite often in Oklahoma).

It's quite dishonest and disingenuous to say Ron Paul supports Genocide. It's the type of shit that you would expect someone from Fox News to say, but not anyone trying to be serious.


Here's what the argument boils down to (another strawman):

Husband: Let's go get icrecream, kids.
Wife: No, they can't. They need to eat dinner first.
Husband: WHAT IS THIS? You are going to deny our children the opportunity to eat food??? You evil BASTARD! They are our CHILDREN FFS!
Wife: facepalm





Wait, wait...I know what's up.

Are you trolling for the lulz? If so, you got me. If not...OMFG...I can't believe it's not butter.

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt

So the NH exit-polls are starting to come in. Romney seems to be killing the competition with either Paul or Huntsman (?) in a close second place depending on who you ask.

I've never followed these things in much detail before and its crazy how fast poll numbers change. Gingrich's NH numbers spiked about two weeks ago and now he's plummeted. Similarly Huntsman was in the single digits early on and now is a contender. On the other hand Romney and Paul have very consistent numbers. I'm not sure what to take from that. Maybe the others are sweeping voters around with ad campaigns while Romney and Paul are voted for on more of an issue basis?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So the NH exit-polls are starting to come in. Romney seems to be killing the competition with either Paul or Huntsman (?) in a close second place depending on who you ask.

I've never followed these things in much detail before and its crazy how fast poll numbers change. Gingrich's NH numbers spiked about two weeks ago and now he's plummeted. Similarly Huntsman was in the single digits early on and now is a contender. On the other hand Romney and Paul have very consistent numbers. I'm not sure what to take from that. Maybe the others are sweeping voters around with ad campaigns while Romney and Paul are voted for on more of an issue basis?

I tell you what to make of it. The people that vote for Romney and the people who vote for Paul are decided and will stay with their candidates. The rest try everyone that's not Romney (or so far Paul, though they might try Paul still).

This chart from Real Clear Politics of the South Carolina primary says it all:

http://i199.photobucket.com/albums/aa158/Bardock42/RCP.jpg

They tried Perry, they tried Cain, they tried Gingrich, they might try Santorum next. And when the ads come in and more info on the candidates comes out they drop them and cry that it's going to be Romney

I re-thought my position: I think debates between Obama and Romney might be interesting as well. By interesting, I mean, "Romney will be able to contend with Obama."

I still think Ron Paul would be best suited to debate with Obama because he would provide the greatest contrast and criticism of Obama. The problem with Paul is his elocution. He kind of stutters through some of his points and is not as eloquent as I would like him to be.

20.9% precincts reporting


Romney - 14,554 - 35.5%

Paul - 10,105 - 24.9%

Huntsman - 6,962 - 16.9%

Gingrich - 4,231 - 10.3%

Santorum - 4,148 - 10.1%

Romney has given his victory speech

South Carolina will be interesting

Boring generalized campaign statements



Ron paul had the speech to listen to

RON PAUL REVOLUTION, BRING US BACK OUR CONSTITUTION


hahhaha beast

Santorum, Romney and Gingrich all pledge to use federal obscenity laws to crackdown on porn.

http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=36922

And all of them suggest Obama is too easy on Iran and that the federal government should enforce anti-weed laws.

http://blog.norml.org/2012/01/05/the-republican-candidates-on-marijuana/

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Santorum, Romney and Gingrich all pledge to use federal obscenity laws to crackdown on porn.

http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=36922

Weird. I've heard people saying now that the candidates are really only vying to be the most overtly Christian or "family values", rather than making specific policy statements.

I don't think the courts would allow any such violations, though, from the sounds of the article, such statutes already exist and are just ignored. Either way, it seems like a really easy thing to promise for a sound bite that these guys have to know would never be possible to implement.

Whatever it takes to get votes. Bunch of frauds these guys are to maintain the status quo. Seems to have worked for Santorum in Iowa. Thats what happens when the media focuses in on someone in the last week before the ballots are casted.

BLWnB9FGmWE


**** mitt romney

Perry Gingrich and Huntsman (before huntsman dropped out) werent able to get on the ballot in virginia. Looks like its a 1 v 1 battle of Romney and Paul.


Edit: Forgot about Frothy. Santorum hasnt made it either.

SC debate on tonight

The only Republican worthy of the presidency is Ron Paul.

I don't give a flying duck about the other Republicans.

Last night in SC was the most bipolar and idiotic crowd ive ever heard.

I'll watch that. It should be online to view on that website I posed. I look forward to watching it...if I have time at work.

Probably on youtube as well by now.

These debates are clearly baised against Paul. Its ran by fox afterall. I seriously have no idea why Perry is even therel. All he is doing is using Ron Pauls words, that man is a joke. When Paul finally gets camera time the man has to speed up his words just to get at least half of what he wants to say out there.

Romney and Gingrich preaching about our enemies and defeating them yet never have fought in battle themselves.

Ron Paul RAPED the twitter polls at the end of the debate. RAPED.


mO4ufkJue5g



It looks like Gingrichs Super Pac attack ads have been screwing Romney over a bit. Gewd... Gewd...

DX_5Ik3wq20

http://i1190.photobucket.com/albums/z443/joeshmoe762/mhI6U.jpg

If Paul gets nominated will Alex Jones have to reverse his stance? Or claim his loss as inevitable. I think it's down to whether Paul agrees with PIPA and SOPA or not.

It's sad to see the American people blinded and brainwashed by the media and the government.

Let's face it. Ron Paul isn't going to win, even if he deserves it.

Another Democrat will be appointed president, most probably Obama the Puppet again.

Originally posted by lord xyz
If Paul gets nominated will Alex Jones have to reverse his stance? Or claim his loss as inevitable. I think it's down to whether Paul agrees with PIPA and SOPA or not.

I think Paul is on record as opposing them.

Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
It's sad to see the American people blinded and brainwashed by the media and the government.

Let's face it. Ron Paul isn't going to win, even if he deserves it.

Another Democrat will be appointed president, most probably Obama the Puppet again.


Xtl2ZuJpG9M



He's doing great. One by one the candidates fall and now there are 4. Newt has some ex wife problems that will expose him. Mitt is already getting exposed. Santorum... well.. yeah. To simply say he has no chance somewhat insists that no one should try. That would just be stupid. RP supporters just need to work harder if they want to see something done. Keep spreading the word. They got him this big already compared to 2008 and prior. The internet generation has grown up.



Originally posted by lord xyz
If Paul gets nominated will Alex Jones have to reverse his stance? Or claim his loss as inevitable. I think it's down to whether Paul agrees with PIPA and SOPA or not.

What does alex jones have to do with it? Ron as well as Rand Paul are oppopsing. Rand Paul is currently working hard fighting against it.

Newt to promise palin a presidential appointment.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/01/18/1056110/-Newt-Gingrich-Promises-Palin-a-Presidential-Appointment-and-Commits-a-Felony

Commits Felony.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Newt to promise palin a presidential appointment.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/01/18/1056110/-Newt-Gingrich-Promises-Palin-a-Presidential-Appointment-and-Commits-a-Felony

Commits Felony.

/facepalm

Does that really count? He isn't President yet and he can only make her part of the administration if he wins.

Obviously if this is taken seriously (which I doubt, because a law against political favors is more doomed than a nonagression pact with Hitler) he'll just pay the fine rather than go to prison.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Does that really count? He isn't President yet and he can only make her part of the administration if he wins.

Obviously if this is taken seriously (which I doubt, because a law against political favors is more doomed than a nonagression pact with Hitler) he'll just pay the fine rather than go to prison.

Of course nothing is going to happen, he's white, rich, politically connected, he could beat someone to death and walk free. But he broke the law, even if he would try to weasel out of it like a true politician.

Lets be honest, just a couple days ago he most definitely co-ordinated with his super-pac, also illegal.

Are people seriously trying to claim that it is in any way illegal for a candidate to discuss whom they might appoint if they win?

Immensely saddening if so.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Are people seriously trying to claim that it is in any way illegal for a candidate to discuss whom they might appoint if they win?

Immensely saddening if so. Well yeah? its the law.

"... for the purpose of procuring support in his candidacy.."

Yup, saddening just like that.

It very much is NOT the law and it is remarkably silly that a bunch of excitable people are thinking it is. Your interpretation of that statute is useless. People are allowed to say who they intend to appoint.

Oh but it is.


edit: Newt going for a 4th wife?

No it is not. And this is a problem we have in society, to be honest- the spreading of this kind of ignorance. People are so keen to try and 'catch out' those they see as the enemy that they will bend any truth to try and portray them as guilty and then cry off about corruption or unfair privilege as being the only reason they were not held accountable, when the simple fact is that they did nothing wrong in the first place.

I don't believe thats the problem with society at all. Sounds like something you're just throwing out there to prove your point. Would you rather keep free information secluded?

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Yup, saddening just like that.

It very much is NOT the law and it is remarkably silly that a bunch of excitable people are thinking it is. Your interpretation of that statute is useless. People are allowed to say who they intend to appoint.

The way I understood it is that he seems to try to get tea party voters by embracing one of their idols and promising a spot for her if he's elected (as well as perhaps getting her to fully endorse him).

To be honest I don't understand why that is wrong, but that seems to be what that paragraph is talking about. Besides having read and heard that from multiple commentators, that's also how I'd interpret that law.

Do you think it just doesn't apply? What circumstances do you think it would apply in?

It's most definitely a problem and one I see going on very regularly. People will happily argue from a position of ignorance because it fits their anti-establishment position. I have no idea what your question has to do with anything at all; you are the one trying to interpret a law designed to stop people using Federal money for patronage as meaning "You are not allowed to say who you would appoint", which is a clear free speech violation.

Originally posted by Bardock42
The way I understood it is that he seems to try to get tea party voters by embracing one of their idols and promising a spot for her if he's elected (as well as perhaps getting her to fully endorse him).

To be honest I don't understand why that is wrong, but that seems to be what that paragraph is talking about. Besides having read and heard that from multiple commentators, that's also how I'd interpret that law.

Do you think it just doesn't apply? What circumstances do you think it would apply in?

No, that's incorrect; the law has nothing at all to do with getting support from the voters. All of those laws are designed to stop you getting people to vote for you by offering them a specific job with federal money. They are designed to stop patronage and trying to apply them here is absurd.

But it does

I get Ush's point, and from certain interpretations of what that says Newt really isn't violating the law as it doesn't look like he was making deals with Palin to gain political support.

However, I think the larger point is that such nuance and protection is really only something offered to the elites in society, as there are instances of far more egregious applications of the law against the general population than it would be to hold Newt in violation of this statute.

I honestly think Sym said it best in terms of the realpolitik here:

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
a law against political favors is more doomed than a nonagression pact with Hitler

I'll admit its probably debunkable. I just really dislike Palin. Even more so than gingrich and he wants to kill me




Edit: but the procuring support part is what catches my eye mainly. Doesn't really specify whos support if that matters.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
No, that's incorrect; the law has nothing at all to do with getting support from the voters. All of those laws are designed to stop you getting people to vote for you by offering them a specific job with federal money. They are designed to stop patronage and trying to apply them here is absurd.

Though presumably Palin will vote for him.

I'm with dadude the wording of the law doesn't seem to leave any room for political appointments. Is there legal precedent for the use of USC 18 29? Between 597, 599, 600, and 602 all political "wooing" would almost have to be illegal. Obviously this can't be the case (or every candidate would be arrested) but I don't really see the specific reason that it isn't.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Obviously this can't be the case (or every candidate would be arrested)...

Indeed which is why I thought it was an open and shut case until Ushgarak pointed out the obvious: every candidate/person in office would get some cuffs and a lawyer.

http://i44.tinypic.com/fuvv5v.jpg

Originally posted by dadudemon
Indeed which is why I thought it was an open and shut case until Ushgarak pointed out the obvious: every candidate/person in office would get some cuffs and a lawyer.

to be fair though, the practices of most major banks "technically" broke the law so bad they crashed the world economy, yet the administration adamantly refuses cuffs or lawyers. Or, for instance, the illegal actions of the Bush administration, or Nixon, etc.

It really doesn't matter what the law is with powerful people.

Originally posted by inimalist
to be fair though, the practices of most major banks "technically" broke the law so bad they crashed the world economy, yet the administration adamantly refuses cuffs or lawyers. Or, for instance, the illegal actions of the Bush administration, or Nixon, etc.

It really doesn't matter what the law is with powerful people.

I know there is probably another thread for this already and my question is almost off topic...


But what laws were broken with the banking crisis we had in 2008?

Originally posted by Mairuzu
http://i43.tinypic.com/14k8sx1.jpg

http://i40.tinypic.com/2gtri2g.jpg

http://i40.tinypic.com/elbcrr.jpg

http://i42.tinypic.com/f00ta9.jpg

http://i40.tinypic.com/154ix49.jpg

http://i42.tinypic.com/ogjpmp.jpg

http://i41.tinypic.com/14e1lvk.jpg

thats actually a very good way of putting it.Paul needs to get the republican nomination and beat Obozo and serve in office.He is the only one who believes in the constitution and serving the people instead of the corporations and the establishment as it looks like you have picked up on that.good.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
RON PAUL REVOLUTION, BRING US BACK OUR CONSTITUTION


hahhaha beast

we can only hope.

boy this thread really died.

Blame it to Gingrich and the people of America.