• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: tryptakid | Foreigner

The One and Only Official CEP Ron Paul Thread

that was some of the most ignorant shit I've read on here in a while bro, you need to get your shit in perspective imo.

Nobody forces you to buy stuff. I for one don't even have a regular TV feed in my house. I go to parks, and I HATE the mall and haven't even been in one for consumer-related stuff in quite some time, damn near 6 months actually. Maybe you're referring to.... yourself?
 
FYI, Ron paul is a constitutionist so he believes abortion should be a state by state issue.
 
The only good thing Ron Paul brings to the table is legalizing pot. His ideas on abortion and gun laws scare me though.

America needs less guns, he wants more. Countries that don't allow people to bear arms have much less shooting deaths. It's not debatable it's fact.

With Paul president you can forget about abortion being legal.

Man, if only Obama would push to legalize pot then he would simply be "the most perfect presidental candidate of all time", IMO.
 
America needs less guns, he wants more. Countries that don't allow people to bear arms have much less shooting deaths. It's not debatable it's fact.

but you're trying to imply that if we reduce gun sales here that it would reduce shooting deaths - there's more to it than that. There is already such a ridiculously large underground market for guns in this country, so if you restrict legal ownership, you're essentially just taking guns out of responsible hands - you're not affecting the illicit gun market very much at all.
 
smotpoker said:
The only good thing Ron Paul brings to the table is legalizing pot. His ideas on abortion and gun laws scare me though.

America needs less guns, he wants more. Countries that don't allow people to bear arms have much less shooting deaths. It's not debatable it's fact.

With Paul president you can forget about abortion being legal.

Man, if only Obama would push to legalize pot then he would simply be "the most perfect presidental candidate of all time", IMO.


First off, Paul believes in the constitution and the 10th amendment, meaning that abortion would become a state issue. Second, he also believes in the second amendment. The purpose of the second amendment was a failsafe against tyranny by government. The first thing Dictators do before they take over is disarm their citizens. Regardless of your opinions on issues, Ron Paul is simply follwing the 2nd and 10th amendments
 
Ron Paul's worst nightmare comes true? NAFTA Superhighway a reality

December 05, 2007
By Craig Offman, National Post

Number two on the popular US web site Digg — right below 12 clips of topless greased up women playing Wii — is a map of the NAFTA Superhighway on an Alberta Government web site. Why in the name of free trade are so many people freaked out about this thoroughfare? A

Many believe the transcontinental corridor is a myth, yet there are many Americans, such as Republican darkhorse candidate Ron Paul, who believe this is a road of the devil--a four-football-field-wide path to American self-destruction that will welcome millions of illegal immigrants. Well, now, Mr. Paul, might think he has some real fodder. The Ministry of Infrastructure and Transportation web site uses the exact phrase, showing a thoroughfare that begins in Manitoba and drops all the way down to West Texas.

When initially reached for comment, ministry communications director Jerry Bellikka said, “Where’s the secret agenda if it’s on a government web site? He added that the controversy is a “pretty good example of political rhetoric getting twisted out of shape.”

UPDATE: After some further investigation, Mr. Bellikka reports that the name in question has been on the site for five years and is used to help inform truckers of certain weight restrictions. "We don't see any link between trucking weights and conspiracy theories," he said, adding that the ministry will not be changing the name.

Superhighway.jpg
 
Oh yeah, because we all know that politicians keep their promises, especially to get rid of federal bureaucracies such as the DEA and CIA and risk getting flak for cutting federal jobs.
Well, I'm not sure if he would actually fire the people who work for the CIA. I think he would just combine it with the rest of the military. That way it will work to defend America, instead of doing whatever the president and the financial elite want it to do. Does anyone know specifically what he would do about the CIA?

I think he actually would try to get rid of them though. He has been very consistent the entire time he has been in congress. It seems like he doesn't let the power go to his head. Most politicians love manipulating people and don't actually have principles, all they want is money and power. It seems like he is a bit different, like he actually wants to help America.
Separation of Church and State = HUGE ISSUE
Yeah, I know that but I'm not so worried about it with him. We will have a democratic congress soon and I really don't think they will try to pass any theocratic laws. If they did (they won't), the federal government would probably not be able to enforce it because he would shrink the government so much.

I'm not really worried about this at all, actually. The GOP had control of all three branches of government for how many years? They didn't even get close to overturning Roe v. Wade the entire time. Ron Paul won't be able to do anything unless the congress gets filled with religious zealots again and I really don't think that's going to happen anytime soon.

Social security is going to collapse, yes, but should we get rid of a public trust surrounding socialized retirement for those on the lower end of the economic spectrum, just so middle and upper class people can put more money into their fucking 401ks and IRAs? No. I am opposed to a lot of taxes but in the case where at least there's some illusion of public oversight over helping the lowest among us, I'll take that over privatization and even more dog-eat-dog capitalism in our society.
Look, I'm on the lower end of the economic spectrum and I know what he is talking about doing will help me much more than social security ever will. The money will be completely gone by the time I could get some of it.

think about it, can you go anywhere without being bombarded with advertising (read: the plasticization and destruction of culture), or hell, go anywhere without being encouraged to spend money. Shit, people don't go to parks anymore, they go to the mall, people don't read books, they watch TV. It's fucking terrifying how much the consumerist concentration camp permeates every aspect of life.
Yeah that's a good point but what can any president really do about that? Like you said, the president isn't a king. You have to do those things yourself and hope that others follow.

But not everyone is like that. I HATE almost all television and the channels I don't hate (C-SPAN, PBS and Link-TV), I rarely watch. It's just a brainwashing tool, basically. Out of everything, I think it is the most responsible for the plasticization and destruction of culture you are talking about.

I also read lots of books and like nature more than malls.

I'll take that over privatization and even more dog-eat-dog capitalism in our society.
The Socialist Case for Ron Paul
 
Remarks on Violent Radicalization & Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act, HR 1955

by Ron Paul

Before the House of Representatives, December 5, 2007


Mr. Speaker, I regret that I was unavoidably out of town on October 23, 2007, when a vote was taken on HR 1955, the Violent Radicalization & Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act. Had I been able to vote, I would have voted against this misguided and dangerous piece of legislation. This legislation focuses the weight of the US government inward toward its own citizens under the guise of protecting us against "violent radicalization."

I would like to note that this legislation was brought to the floor for a vote under suspension of regular order. These so-called "suspension" bills are meant to be non-controversial, thereby negating the need for the more complete and open debate allowed under regular order. It is difficult for me to believe that none of my colleagues in Congress view HR 1955, with its troubling civil liberties implications, as "non-controversial."

There are many causes for concern in HR 1955. The legislation specifically singles out the Internet for "facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process" in the United States. Such language may well be the first step toward US government regulation of what we are allowed to access on the Internet. Are we, for our own good, to be subjected to the kind of governmental control of the Internet that we see in unfree societies? This bill certainly sets us on that course.

This seems to be an unwise and dangerous solution in search of a real problem. Previous acts of ideologically motivated violence, though rare, have been resolved successfully using law enforcement techniques, existing laws against violence, and our court system. Even if there were a surge of "violent radicalization" – a claim for which there is no evidence – there is no reason to believe that our criminal justice system is so flawed and weak as to be incapable of trying and punishing those who perpetrate violent acts.

This legislation will set up a new government bureaucracy to monitor and further study the as-yet undemonstrated pressing problem of homegrown terrorism and radicalization. It will no doubt prove to be another bureaucracy that artificially inflates problems so as to guarantee its future existence and funding. But it may do so at great further expense to our civil liberties. What disturbs me most about this legislation is that it leaves the door wide open for the broadest definition of what constitutes "radicalization." Could otherwise nonviolent anti-tax, anti-war, or anti-abortion groups fall under the watchful eye of this new government commission? Assurances otherwise in this legislation are unconvincing.

In addition, this legislation will create a Department of Homeland Security-established university-based body to further study radicalization and to "contribute to the establishment of training, written materials, information, analytical assistance and professional resources to aid in combating violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism." I wonder whether this is really a legitimate role for institutes of higher learning in a free society.

Legislation such as this demands heavy-handed governmental action against American citizens where no crime has been committed. It is yet another attack on our Constitutionally protected civil liberties. It is my sincere hope that we will reject such approaches to security, which will fail at their stated goal at a great cost to our way of life.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul428.html


Ron Paul Maintains WV GOP Delegate Lead

Charleston, WV (HNN) – Based on numbers released Friday, Dec. 7, by www.wvgopconvention.com Ron Paul has increased his delegate count to 229, while Mitt Romney stays close behind with 225 delegates. Fred Thompson is in a solid third place with 170 delegates, followed by Mike Huckabee at 134, Rudy Giuliani with 93, John McCain had 27, and Alan Keyes, 6.

These are not cited as final tallies; they are the number of qualifying uncounted delegates as of Friday, Dec. 7. The newest figures recorded just 36 new committed delegates. The number of uncommitted delegates grew from 630 to 671.

After all of the delegate registrations are processed, an online vote will be conducted among at-large candidates competing for more spots than there are vacancies. The West Virginia Convention will have a total of 1,446 delegates. For instance, Kanawha County now has 150 delegates but only 51 slots are available.

http://www.huntingtonnews.net/political/071208-rutherford-politicalronpaul.html

Ron Paul supporters dominate at mock 'caucus'

Supporters of Republican congressman Ron Paul overtook a mock political caucus in Winston-Salem last night to help their man win big.

A group of liberal, conservative and nonpartisan political groups organized the meetings yesterday across the country. Called the National Presidential Caucus, the meetings were a way to give voice to voters who live in states whose primaries probably won’t matter in next year’s presidential race. The group’s Web site is www.nationalcaucus.com.

The host of the “caucus” here was Vernon Robinson, a former Winston-Salem City Council member and former Republican congressional candidate in the 5th and 13th districts.

“The point is that having a small number of voters in three or four states decide who the two nominees are so that it is irrelevant what anybody in North Carolina thinks is the wrong answer,” Robinson said.

The turnout at Forsyth Academy was heavy on libertarians and Paul supporters carrying pocket Constitutions and calling for major reductions in government.

In a poll of the group, Paul received 43 votes, Democratic U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio got two, and Republican Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado got one.

“If anything, it’s a testimony to the effectiveness of grass-roots organizations,” said Jennifer Dale, the office manager of the Forsyth County Democratic Party and one of the two voters for Kucinich.

Paul, who voted against the Patriot Act and against war with Iraq, was the Libertarian Party’s candidate for president in 1988. He was elected to Congress from Texas as

a Republican, and is using the Internet to raise millions of dollars for his presidential run.

Jim McCuiston of Winston-Salem explained why he likes Paul.

“I’ve always considered myself an independent,” said McCuiston, who had a “Ron Paul 2008” sticker on his chest. “Ron Paul cured my apathy. “There’s nothing I dislike about him. But he’s for returning to the Constitution, which means returning power to the states.

His whole policy is tied together for it to work.”

Paul is the only Republican who could successfully challenge Hillary Rodham Clinton in the general election, McCuiston said, because Paul wants the U.S. military out of Iraq.

Robinson, an admitted Paul backer, said he was surprised at the makeup of the meeting.

He drove to Davidson County to meet a staff member for Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee as the staff member drove on Interstate 85 from South Carolina to Virginia. Robinson talked him into giving up three Huckabee yard signs. But no one wanted to take one home last night.

And the stack of 45 colorful Mitt Romney brochures billing his plans for “Revitalizing the American Spirit” went nearly untouched.

“I thought there would be more turnout for other candidate’s folks,” Robinson said. “The Ron Paul folks evidently are fired up. They want to come out and support their guy in the cold.…Assuming that’s the case all over the country, that might suggest something interesting that will happen in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.”

The 2008 Iowa caucus will be Jan. 3. North Carolina’s presidential primaries are in May, and by then the Republican and Democratic nominees will likely be all but determined.

Either way, the GOP headquarters in Forsyth County should soon have three Mike Huckabee signs available to the first takers.

http://www.journalnow.com/servlet/S...SJ_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1173353786220
 
yummy22 said:
Remarks on Violent Radicalization & Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act, HR 1955

by Ron Paul

Before the House of Representatives, December 5, 2007


Mr. Speaker, I regret that I was unavoidably out of town on October 23, 2007, when a vote was taken on HR 1955, the Violent Radicalization & Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act. Had I been able to vote, I would have voted against this misguided and dangerous piece of legislation. This legislation focuses the weight of the US government inward toward its own citizens under the guise of protecting us against "violent radicalization."

I would like to note that this legislation was brought to the floor for a vote under suspension of regular order. These so-called "suspension" bills are meant to be non-controversial, thereby negating the need for the more complete and open debate allowed under regular order. It is difficult for me to believe that none of my colleagues in Congress view HR 1955, with its troubling civil liberties implications, as "non-controversial."

There are many causes for concern in HR 1955. The legislation specifically singles out the Internet for "facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process" in the United States. Such language may well be the first step toward US government regulation of what we are allowed to access on the Internet. Are we, for our own good, to be subjected to the kind of governmental control of the Internet that we see in unfree societies? This bill certainly sets us on that course.

This seems to be an unwise and dangerous solution in search of a real problem. Previous acts of ideologically motivated violence, though rare, have been resolved successfully using law enforcement techniques, existing laws against violence, and our court system. Even if there were a surge of "violent radicalization" – a claim for which there is no evidence – there is no reason to believe that our criminal justice system is so flawed and weak as to be incapable of trying and punishing those who perpetrate violent acts.

This legislation will set up a new government bureaucracy to monitor and further study the as-yet undemonstrated pressing problem of homegrown terrorism and radicalization. It will no doubt prove to be another bureaucracy that artificially inflates problems so as to guarantee its future existence and funding. But it may do so at great further expense to our civil liberties. What disturbs me most about this legislation is that it leaves the door wide open for the broadest definition of what constitutes "radicalization." Could otherwise nonviolent anti-tax, anti-war, or anti-abortion groups fall under the watchful eye of this new government commission? Assurances otherwise in this legislation are unconvincing.

In addition, this legislation will create a Department of Homeland Security-established university-based body to further study radicalization and to "contribute to the establishment of training, written materials, information, analytical assistance and professional resources to aid in combating violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism." I wonder whether this is really a legitimate role for institutes of higher learning in a free society.

Legislation such as this demands heavy-handed governmental action against American citizens where no crime has been committed. It is yet another attack on our Constitutionally protected civil liberties. It is my sincere hope that we will reject such approaches to security, which will fail at their stated goal at a great cost to our way of life.

Christ, man, wtf is happening to our country. Last I checked the guy who sang Peace Train was being shipped off to Guantanamo, and the way its looking, we might be on the next boat. Ron Paul is dominating on the GOP side when real people are polled, and
Kucinich's true support is now starting to show evident as well.

The people are fed up with the corporate stranglehold a few rich white men have on America, and revolution is indeed emminent. ...that is if we all do our part, and I've seen more than a few homemade Paul signs and fully expect to see some Kucinich ones pop up soon. ;) ;) (this means you) If Hillary or Rudy (Good God, man, the media have programmed us to the point of having their picks on a nationwide first name basis 8o) win next Niovember, it will only because of CNN and Diebold (and McDonalds, Time Warner, Phillip Morris, Phizer, etc. see the true flag as it really is below)

abflagls4.gif


We need to take back America people, and take back today. We need to nominate Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul, and have a true election before our flag looks more like this:

futureflagte7.jpg


...I don't think the stripes would really be blue though, Jesus Christ, we're already redder than the ruskies.
 
haha first flag is from adbusters right?

I have been seeing a ton of homemade ron paul posters - wish they looked nicer but at least they get the point across! My favorite one so far was a white sign with black spray or marker, reading:

Google
Ron Paul
 
Well there is Unity '08, if a third party actually has a chance. Their dream of a bipartisan ticket could be realized, think Paul/Kucinich, or as I'd prefer, Kucinich/Paul. Though, they're not making alot of headway lately, still they are planning to have an online primary where anyone who can vote at the click of a mouse.

The real question is are we going to continue to accept the government pre-chosen for us by the biased white bread media and the corporate amalgamated establishment that rules this country. Will the real people step up and register in the respective parties (registering as a Democrat is free by the way ;)) and vote for the candidates who actually have the heart to stand up to this tyranny that has polluted, poisoned, and penetrates every aspect of our lives? And if so, will those vote processors let slip the dogs of truth that America is ready for revolution, be it civil or otherwise? And if not, my friends, who here has the steadfast resolve of the true patriot to say NO MORE! WE WILL NOT STAND BY WHILE YOU RAPE AND PILLAGE OUR CONSTITUTION ANY LONGER!

We can do this, my friends, To hell with the police, Fuck the secret service Geroge Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Paul Revere, and a tenfold- thousand others stood up to tyranny in this great land of ours, and you can too!
 
Last edited:
Ron Paul Can Win: BIG
The shared crystal ball, scientific polls, and information strategy says Ron Paul’s campaign is a frivolous, quixotic, and impossible struggle. They’re all wrong.

by Westmiller
(Libertarian)
http://www.nolanchart.com/article440.html

There are only two words that are mandatory for any popular news report or commentary on the Ron Paul campaign: "can’t win" must appear somewhere in the article or broadcast. Of course, this statement isn’t a fact; it’s purely conjecture. However, it has become a popular truism through a tactic called the "Availability Cascade." This is information theory jargon for "Everybody says so, therefore it must be true." Every authoritative, informed, credible, esteemed, and popular source says this assertion is true. Even if the claim is false, it will become true, simply because it intends to dispel all hope that any contrary outcome is possible. Every effort to make it true is quixotic, foolish, and self-destructive. Don’t bother to try: Ron Paul can’t win.

The claim isn’t totally frivolous, even if no one can predict the future. Operational crystal balls are in short supply and even the most popular psychics are more often wrong than right. But, it is a fact that Ron Paul frequently represents a minority of one within the halls of Congress. He’s called "Dr. No" because he is often the only legislator who votes against bills that are otherwise unanimously approved. Being one out of 435 elected representatives must certainly indicate that Paul’s popular support is less than 0.2% of those represented in Congress. Obviously, nobody can win a national election with less than two tenths of the national vote. Therefore, the logic goes, he can’t win.

Popular media outlets can’t take their credibility lightly, or they could go bankrupt for lack of readers, viewers, and listeners who consider their insights untrustworthy. So, a scientific basis for their speculative "facts" is very important. What could be more "scientific" than opinion polling? A random selection of adults, properly filtered, is the only means of discovering what the public – read advertising clients – think about any issue or person. Every successful business uses scientific polling for their marketing analysis, so it must work. Until recently, Ron Paul’s support in scientific polls was less than the margin of error, well under 5.0% of the surveyed likely voters. Since that isn’t even remotely near the 50.1% required to win a national election, Ron Paul can’t win.

RP_Poll_Projection_0712.jpg


(article continues but is very long)
 
The groundswell for Ron Paul
The improbably successful campaign of the representative from Texas showcases U.S. disillusionment with politics as usual

The Arizona Republic
Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch
Dec. 9, 2007 12:00 AM

How to make sense of the Ron Paul revolution? What's behind the improbably successful (so far) presidential campaign of a 72-year-old 10-term Republican congressman from Texas who pines for the gold standard while drawing praise from another relic from the hyperinflationary 1970s, punk-rocker Johnny Rotten?

Now, with about 5 percent (and climbing) support in polls of likely Republican voters, Paul set a one-day GOP record by raising $4.3 million on the Internet from 38,000 donors on Nov. 5 - Guy Fawkes Day, the commemoration of a British anarchist who plotted to blow up Parliament and kill King James I in 1605. Paul's campaign didn't even organize the fundraiser - an independent-minded supporter did.

When a fierce Republican foe of the wars on drugs and terrorism is able, without really trying, to pull in a record haul of campaign cash, it's clear that a new and potentially transformative force is growing in American politics.
advertisement


That force is less about Paul than about the movement that has erupted around him - and the much larger subset of Americans who are increasingly disillusioned with the two major political parties' soft consensus on making government ever more intrusive at all levels, whether it's listening to phone calls without a warrant, imposing fines of half a million dollars for broadcast "obscenities" or jailing grandmothers for buying prescribed marijuana from legal dispensaries.

Paul, who entered Congress in 1976, has been dubbed "Dr. No" by his colleagues because of his consistent nay votes on federal spending, military intervention in Iraq and elsewhere, and virtually all expansions of federal power (he cast one of three GOP votes against the original USA Patriot Act). But his philosophy of principled libertarianism is anything but negative: It's predicated on the fundamental notion that a smaller government allows individuals the freedom to pursue happiness as they see fit.

As Michael Kinsley, an arch purveyor of conventional wisdom, wrote recently in Time magazine, such people are going to be "an increasingly powerful force in politics."

Kinsley is hardly alone in recognizing this trend. In April 2006, the Pew Research Center published a study suggesting that 9 percent of Americans - more than enough to swing every presidential election since 1988 - espouse a "libertarian" ideology that opposes "government regulation in both the economic and the social spheres." That is, a good chunk of your fellow citizens are fiscally conservative and socially liberal; in bumper-stickerese, they love their countrymen but distrust their government. Anyone looking to win elections - or to make sense of contemporary U.S. politics - would do well to understand the deep and growing reservoir that Paul is tapping into.



More than at any other time over the past two decades, Americans are hungering for libertarianism. Ron Paul may lose next year's battle - though not without a memorable fight - but the laissez-faire agitators he has helped energize will find themselves at the leading edge of American politics for years to come.



Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch are editors at Reason magazine. This column appeared in the Washington Post.
 
That's Dr. Paul to You
By washingtonpost.com Editors | December 10, 2007; 4:40 PM ET

Ron Paul is airing a new TV ad in Iowa and New Hampshire that discusses his idea on health care reform. The ad also reminds viewers that the Texas congressman is also a doctor.

The ad uses a mix of cartoon images and stock photos, and mentions the Walter Reed scandal as a reason the government should not be trusted to run the nation's health care system.

"Big tug of war going on on health care these days," an actor says.

More: "I say we need Ron Paul for president. One, he's a doctor. Seen it all. Two, he's got the right idea. Take power from big business and the bureaucrats. Give it back to patients and the doctors they choose. Now that's the right medicine."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENfMexgorp4

Paul is running a similar 60-second radio ad in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina.

-- Ed O'Keefe
 
Check this out

Hey guys the other day i posted these comments on a aolnews chatroom when I was on a friends computer at the time, a few days later said friend recieved this e-mail from aol the only edit is there screen name because i don't know if said friend wants it out there.
what bullshit I even tried sending it to Ron Paul but the dude I talked too didn't seem to interested. What bullshit though Tell me what you guys think about it?

peace, cipher

---------------------------------

Dear Member,

AOL has been notified of a comment made by one of the screen names on your account which violates AOL's Terms of Service (TOS) in AOL News. A written warning has been entered on your account record along with the information below.

The ------------- screen name posted a comment in AOL News that contained the following inappropriate content:

ron paul for president 2008 www.ronpaul2008.com support law enforcement in cleaning up america www.leap.org

AOL has deleted this comment. Feel free to post a comment that does not include this kind of objectionable content.

When creating an AOL account, all members agree to abide by AOL's TOS. These guidelines prohibit the use of vulgar or sexually oriented language, sexually explicit images, harassment, discussion of illegal activities, and/or other activities that may impair the enjoyment of our members.

Please take a moment to be sure all users of this account are familiar with Keyword: TOS.

To learn more about how to protect your AOL account, we recommend you visit Keywords: Safety and Parental Controls.

If you have any comments or questions please send email to the Screen Name: TOSGeneral.

Regards,

Community Action Team
AOL LLC

-------------
 
that's weird and, given your join date/post count, I've gotta say I'm skeptical as hell until someone else says the same. I'm sure it's objecting to the leap comment if anything tho, which wouldn't make this a ron paul issue (well, not directly really). Leap is against the drug war, aol may prohibit drug friendly stuff, who knows?

In either event, if they're honestly censoring that it's completely fuct up and I'm shocked I haven't heard of many incidences, like from major news outlets, of that kind of bold censorship, but am instead hearing an anecdote from someone who signed up a week ago - anyone here with the same messaging program wanna try sending leap and rp articles back and forth to see if you can get a warning too?
 
For what it's worth

for what it's worth I know I just joined under this screen name but used to be a member in 2001, and only quit being on the board because i got into a failed marrige which lasted 6 years and only for the past few months been involved in a succesful (LoL;) ) divorce, now finally being able to be back in a scene which I've missed greatly and love being a part of =D but yeah I can hear why you doubt my credilbility but make no mistakes I wouldn't lie about this has I am a staunch opponet of the WOD and believe the problem needs to be addresed now and not later!!! My friend kept the e-mail so I don't know if that helps.

PEACE

CIPHER

EDIT: By the way since aol said they issued a written warning i wonder if there is any way to get a "official" copy of sorts? If someone has advice about how i can go about this PM me.
 
Last edited:
While Ron Paul as some decent ideas his presentation sucks. His views that it is "america's fault" is not a person i want in the whitehouse and many others feel the same wyay. I havent heard him in a debate where he doesnt blame America for something. Sorry he has no chance. People want a PResident that is for america and Americas interests. Not a president who blames america for everything.
 
i would rather have a realistic president that admits our own faults that a nationalistic arrogant idiot that contiues us down the same destructive path.
 
Top