great wall street journal article

Thanks -- it goes out of its way to play down his chances/support, but overall not bad.
 
Nice. Who would've thought the Wall Street Journal would have an article like this? They didn't even call him a long shot.
 
Nice. Who would've thought the Wall Street Journal would have an article like this? They didn't even call him a long shot.

"a growing, if still small, number of voters"

"His rise, though modest"

"though he has gone from zero to just 2% in polls"

"But having run as a Libertarian in 1988, when he took just 0.47% of the vote"

"Rep. Ron Paul barely registers in presidential polls"

"Paul remains among the longest of longshots in his party"
 
"a growing, if still small, number of voters"

"His rise, though modest"

"though he has gone from zero to just 2% in polls"

"But having run as a Libertarian in 1988, when he took just 0.47% of the vote"

"Rep. Ron Paul barely registers in presidential polls"

"Paul remains among the longest of longshots in his party"

Who uses facts to prove a point these days?

I guess I missed the long shot part.
 
That's a great article!!! I wish they had mentioned that he would abolish the IRS and replace it with nothing though.
 
Replace it with NOTHING?

What a world that would be! The repucussions would be exciting to live through.
 
I hate the "Legalize Drugs" bullets people throw into articles. It's inaccurate and turns people away. The article was fine, but 'legalize drugs' really gets under my skin. I know why it's a good idea, but not even Ron Paul wants to 'legalize them.' He wants to let states decide (which is fair in my opinion). I don't understand why these authors insist on radicalizing Ron Paul.
 
Back
Top