This is the type of voter that - No One But Paul - is directly aimed at.

[donnay]

Errrr......AF? Donnay? Don't you guys live in the same house ?

AF is presently at work and off shore with no phone service, while I secure the home front.

 

[LibertyEsq]

I think if Ron Paul didn't win the nomination I'd vote Libertarian party - that way the Republican party would know exactly how many votes it was missing out on

 

[Dary]

Uncle F???!!!

You. Have. Got. To. Be. Fucking. Kidding. Me!

My Uncle F?!!? picked me up from the airport yesterday and he had some neo-nut on the radio going on about how Herman Cain was a conservative. I couldn't help but laugh and say “Cain a conservative? Cain's not a conservative. He doesn't know the meaning of the word”.

At which point my Uncle said, “well if Cain isn't a conservative, then there aren't any running on the republican ticket.”

So I said, “yeah there is.”

And he says, “who?”

I said, “Ron Paul.”

He says, “Ron Paul isn't a conservative, he's a libertarian.”

I told him, “(in capital letters) I'M a libertarian and the libertarians I know call him a conservative.”

So he starts going on with the whole “I agree with Ron Paul on everything except his foreign policy” bit, and I said that I in fact DO agree with Ron on his foreign policy.

So he starts with the “Oh so your not worried about Iran having a nuke”, and I was like “not worried in the slightest”.

Then he went on and on about how "they are all a bunch of religious fanatics and they would use the bomb on us and that they all thought that would bring about the coming of Allah”.

So I said that there are plenty of Christian religious fanatics in this country who have similar beliefs and that there were plenty of fanatics to go around.

He says, “yeah but they are crazy though and that they want to start a war.”

So I said, “yeah well when is the last time Iran started a war with anyone?"

He said, “what about the war with Iraq where 10's of thousands of Iranians used themselves as weapons in human wave attacks?”

I had to remind him that it was Iraq, with the help of the U.S. that actually started that war.

He didn't say anything after that. He just kept driving.

At least he didn't kick me out of the car, so I guess that's progress.

 

[Anti Federalist]

I had to remind him that it was Iraq, with the help of the U.S. that actually started that war.

 

[TheTexan]

Ya, our foreign policy is so crooked it looks straight from 6,000 miles away.

 

[bunklocoempire]

Out there in the interwebs...

Mike D. wrote:
A vote for Paul is a vote for Obama. As much as we like him the old dude has no chance of winning, so pick a viable Republican and vote.

And my reply:

Is this left over from 2008?

Some questions to consider:

1. Are Paul supporters "fair weather friends to liberty"? No. We voted for Paul and we'll vote for him again. We're irate and tireless.

2. Can Paul supporters even be swayed to vote for anyone else? Yeah, right.

Now for the sweet one-

3. Has the support for Paul grown or diminished? Support has grown. Check the polls compared to 2008.

Honestly answering these questions logically leads to: a vote for anyone other than Paul is a vote for Obama.

No other Republican will take the White House without our support. You either help elect Paul or settle in for more Obama, your choice.

"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." Samuel Adams

Thanks for playing.




Bunkloco

NOBP


Bunkloco

 

[Hospitaller]

No one but ron paul 2012

no one but rand paul 2016

 

[Elwar]

Unfortunately noonebutpaul.com is taken.

 

[Steve Teters]

I think the same guy commented to me on another post, he said about the same thing reguarding a marxist in the white house now and said my "no one but Paul' would keep him in office. My reply to him:

I respectfully disagree, my whole point it this discussion is that, in my opinion, there is no difference between the Democratic or Republican offering if Ron Paul is not on the ticket, so I refuse to vote for a "lesser evil". There is big government social side or big government military side, but both are big government and both advocate a redistribution of wealth to the demise of the middle class in this country. Furthermore, both parties seem to be in favor of reducing our liberty under the guise of "security". Don't get me wrong, I'm not an anarchist, there is a real place for government on the national level, just not to the scale that it has evolved to. Every other candidate, with the exception of Gary Johnson, seems to think that government in your pants is acceptable and I find it truly astonishing that the people of this country are ok with that. I try to hold myself, and by extension the people who purport to represent us, to a high standard, and while I often miss the mark, I don't stop trying. Ron Paul strives for that higher standard, his belief in what we CAN do is a goal worth striving for, and the other candidates seem more interested in what we can't do.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Good replies!

+rep to both

No One But Paul

Out there in the interwebs...



And my reply:




NOBP


Bunkloco

I think the same guy commented to me on another post, he said about the same thing reguarding a marxist in the white house now and said my "no one but Paul' would keep him in office. My reply to him:

I respectfully disagree, my whole point it this discussion is that, in my opinion, there is no difference between the Democratic or Republican offering if Ron Paul is not on the ticket, so I refuse to vote for a "lesser evil". There is big government social side or big government military side, but both are big government and both advocate a redistribution of wealth to the demise of the middle class in this country. Furthermore, both parties seem to be in favor of reducing our liberty under the guise of "security". Don't get me wrong, I'm not an anarchist, there is a real place for government on the national level, just not to the scale that it has evolved to. Every other candidate, with the exception of Gary Johnson, seems to think that government in your pants is acceptable and I find it truly astonishing that the people of this country are ok with that. I try to hold myself, and by extension the people who purport to represent us, to a high standard, and while I often miss the mark, I don't stop trying. Ron Paul strives for that higher standard, his belief in what we CAN do is a goal worth striving for, and the other candidates seem more interested in what we can't do.

 

[Captain Shays]

Try this:

McCain would maintain the Federal Reserve's control of our money supply. A Corporation that's registered in the state of Delaware who took control of our money in 1913 and hasn't once been audited.
Obama would also allow it. Not only that but they both advocated for bailing them out!

McCain would keep the income tax in place. As of now, our government takes our money before we even see it and gives it over to those same bankers who control our money. Who create that money out of thin air and charge us interest which us and our children and their children will NEVER be able to pay.
Obama also would keep the income tax in place.

McCain is an advocate for policing the world and sticking our noses into the business of other countries and engaging in wars against countries that never attacked us or threatened us and without a declaration of war by Congress according to the Constitution.
Obama obviously agrees with him

McCain wants to keep us in all of the extra-national trade agreements that have diminished our sovereignty as a nation and helped to destroy our production base like IMf, World Bank, WTO, NAFTA, CAFTA and the SPP.
OBama wants to keep us in those too.

McCain wants to maintain our membership in the United Nations and even go to war for their causes like Bush did in Iraq and Truman did in Korea and Obama did in Uganda, Libya, Pakistan etc etc etc
Bbama.......

McCain would grow government in terms of size, intrusiveness into our lives, and spending eg worked to double the size of the Dept of Ed. with Ted Kennedy, supported the Patriot Act, supported SPP (open borders) and was highly instrumental in developing the Precription Drug Program.
Obama too and on too many other programs to mention.

Neither would secure our border.
Same

That might get their attention because guess what? ALL of the current field of GOP hopefuls is pretty much the same on ALL of those issues. That leaves ONLY ONE


(((((NO ONE BUT PAUL)))))

 

[Captain Shays]

I think if Ron Paul didn't win the nomination I'd vote Libertarian party - that way the Republican party would know exactly how many votes it was missing out on

That might actually be a great repository of our Ron Paul votes. My only concern is that they won't be counted as Ron Paul votes. I am looking for a repository of our No ONE BUT PAUL votes to make it really clear to the establishment that is what cost them the election. I want to wave my flag high and I want to wave it proudly. I want everyone to know that we voted for on one but paul. Not scattered votes, some for Obama out of spite, some for a Libertarian or Constitution candidate. Unless of course we can arrange for them to work with us. If we contact them my strategy would be for the Libertarian Party AND the Constitution Party AND the Green Party AND the Independents as per the advice from Nader and Kucinich to vote join us. They could pre-nominate Ron Paul IF he chooses to run as an Independent, a Libertarian or a Constitution Party candidate. I'll even bet that the Tea Party people will come on board when they realize that unless they do, it WILL BE another four years of Obama. I also think that if we do this right and get some publicity a lot of other conservatives will join us as well when they realize that it's either Ron Paul or Obama. But we need to convince them that will in fact happen. In order to accomplish this we NEED ...ONE...Repository for ALL of our votes. It can go to the Republicans which is even less tasty than casting their vote for Ron Paul as a Libertarian and of course the Republican Party would actually have to nominate Ron Paul for them to get our votes. If they don't and this is what it's all predicated on THEN we put a plan together. This is my way to circumvent the two party crimocracy and the media. Unfortunately its also a huge gamble on our part because it depends to some degree on the extent of media coverage. They may even keep Ron Paul out of the televised debates, in which case I would team up with Opendebates.org to help us gather the support of ALL third party people and independents to FIGHT for Ron Paul to be included. Hopefully they will agree to not run any other candidate and will cooperate to get him into the debates. Our fund raising prowess and our internet savvy will take up the slack.

 

[Captain Shays]

What I am saying is that we should try to form a coalition between ALL third parties for this one election in case the Republicans don't nominate Ron Paul and the establishment needs to know that this coalition pre-exists and WILL come alive IF the Republicans don't nominate Ron Paul. If you guys like it we can start burning up the lines getting in touch with the leaders of those parties and see if they might come on board with this plan. It would REALLY shake up the establishment. I imagine that even a lot fo the OWS protesters and the Tea Party activists would join us. Jon Hegalin had this same idea back in 2000 and no one wanted to come on board. I winder if they will if Ron Paul is the nominee?