Community | January 12, 2012 | 229 comments

10 reasons why even democrats, liberals and progressives are choosing Ron Paul over Obama

source: http://www.naturalnews.com/034612_S...

Image
Anonmaly
It's a seemingly absurd idea on the surface: Why would democrats and liberals want to vote for Ron Paul (a Republican) over President Obama? Maybe because they want freedom instead of tyranny, it turns out. Because if you're a total slave to the police state, it doesn't really matter whether you're on the left or the right, does it?

Here, I give you ten solid reasons why even liberals and progressives are supporting Ron Paul. And by the way, I don't worship Ron Paul or any individual. What I honor is the principles that Ron Paul stands for -- the very same principles President Obama has outright abandoned in his broken promises and disturbing reversals against the American people. Out of all the candidates, only Ron Paul has the ethical and moral strength to carry out his office from a place of principle rather than betrayal.

#1) Ron Paul supports decriminalizing marijuana and ending the War on Drugs. Obama does not.
Remember when Obama promised he would decriminalize marijuana, but now his own administration continues to raid legal drug dispensaries in California? That's a classic Obama lie: Say one thing to get elected, then turn around and do the exact opposite.

Ron Paul, on the other hand, openly supports decriminalizing marijuana and ending the failed War on Drugs. Although he doesn't promote recreational drug use (and neither do I), he understands that treating weed smokers as hard-core criminals is ethical, morally and economically wrong. See my related article on Snoop Dogg and his recent drug bust in Texas: http://www.naturalnews.com/034612_S...

#2) Ron Paul supports the freedom to choose what you eat and drink, including raw milk, but the Obama administration continues to run armed raids on raw milk farmers
Under Ron Paul, the FDA would be forced to end its vicious armed raids on Amish farmers and raw dairy producers. Obama has openly allowed such armed raids to continue under his watch, refusing to even take a stand for food freedom in America.

Ron Paul understands that liberty is the most important component of abundance. If you are not free to choose what you want to eat, smoke what you want to smoke, and choose your own type of medicine and health care, then you are a slave, not a citizen. Ron Paul seeks to get Big Government out of your life, away from your kitchen, out of your medicine cabinet and away from your children.

#3) Ron Paul would seek to eliminate FDA censorship of the scientifically-validated health claims for herbs, nutritional supplements and natural remedies
Under Bush and Obama, the FDA's continued censorship of truthful statements about medicinal herbs, homeopathy and nutritional supplements has been fully supported by the White House. Obama is just a corporate puppet, of course, and that means he does whatever the powerful corporations tell him to do -- especially the Wall Street and Big Pharma corporations. So it's no surprise he hasn't taken a stand to support health freedom for foods and supplements.

But Ron Paul has pushed the Health Freedom Protection Act year after year (http://www.naturalnews.com/019382_H...), tirelessly working to legalize nutrition in America and restore Free Speech for Chinese Medicine herbs, Western medicine herbs and dietary supplements. Where Obama wants people to remain ignorant and malnourished, Ron Paul wants to restore your right to know the truth about supplements and natural medicine. As Ron Paul said in late 2005:

"The Health Freedom Protection Act will force the FDA to at last comply with the commands of Congress, the First Amendment, and the American people by codifying the First Amendment standards adopted by the federal courts. Specifically, the Health Freedom Protection Act stops the FDA from censoring truthful claims about the curative, mitigative, or preventative effects of dietary supplements, and adopts the federal court's suggested use of disclaimers as an alternative to censorship. The Health Freedom Protection Act also stops the FDA from prohibiting the distribution of scientific articles and publications regarding the role of nutrients in protecting against disease."

#4) Ron Paul would shut down secret military prisons like Gitmo, but Obama wants to expand those prisons and fill them with Americans!
It is now common knowledge that Obama lied when he said he would shut down Guantanamo Bay. As it turns out, Obama actually signed the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) on New Year's Eve (when no one would notice). The NDAA grants the U.S. government the claimed "legal" right to "indefinitely detain" U.S. citizens, throw them in secret military prisons, interrogate them and even kill them with no due process. All this can now take place without a person even being charged with a crime, much less given their day in court. (http://www.naturalnews.com/034537_N...)

Obama quietly signed this bill on New Year's Eve, hoping no one would notice. This is how low his morals have stooped, by the way -- to signing traitorous bills in the dark of night, on the evening before a major holiday where half the nation is hung over from alcohol. Why no signing ceremony with full coverage by CNN, huh? Maybe it's because national traitors don't want their crimes against the United States Constitution to be filmed on camera.

In signing this, Obama violated his own oath of office, nullified the U.S. Bill of Rights, and essentially committed an act of mass civil rights violations against the People of America. Rep. Ron Paul, on the other hand, is one of the very few people who has openly and sternly opposed this unlawful NDAA which blatantly and arrogantly violates the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights.

This single point alone outweighs everything else you might think about Ron Paul. Even if you disagree with Ron Paul on other issues, none of that really matters if you're rotting away in a secret military prison for daring to protest in a public park, for example. Without the Bill of Rights, nothing else really matters because tyranny takes over. The Bill of Rights must be defended first and at all costs. It is the only thing limiting the power of government and protecting the People from tyranny. Without it, we are all little more than slaves to a military dictatorship.

#5) Ron Paul is anti-war, Obama is pro-war.
Remember when Bush was the President, and everybody on the left was screaming about getting us out of all those wars in the Middle East? Funny how they suddenly fell silent when Obama took over the reins from Bush and continued running those same wars, isn't it?

Ron Paul is solidly anti-war. Although he agrees with the need to "defend our shores," he also believes that the United States has no moral authority (nor financial stability) from which to engage in running around the world as some sort of global police force, intervening in the business of nations, especially in the Middle East.

He is solidly against a war with Iran even as all the other candidates seem to be almost desperate to throw other people's sons and daughters onto the front lines of violent conflict. Only Ron Paul truly honors the troops by bringing them home. All the other war-mongers who say "support our troops" are really screaming, "Let our troops get killed overseas!" And unlike Gingrich, Ron Paul actually served his country as a military man, even with a child to care for:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/ron-pau...

(+5 more @ link)



http://www.naturalnews.com/034630_Ron_Paul_democrats_liberals.html
  1. groups:
    Community,   News and Politics,   Entertainment,   Politics,   22 more
  2. tags:
    Election,  Ron Paul,  Truth,  Debate,  11 more
  3.     
    |

229 comments // 10 reasons why even democrats, liberals and progressives are choosing Ron Paul over Obama

  • sffsmessiah
    • +1
      sffsmessiah  

    • hahahaha right. Ron Paul might SAY he's for all this shit, and he might even be sincere--unfortunately his policies would do nothing but strip the federal government of its power and ability to function and put the economy into another recession/depression.

      his support comes simply from the fact that all the other republican candidates are FUCKING CRAZY, and their intentions are to enrich themselves at the expense of the middle class. Ron Paul might be slightly less worse, and a better person, but that doesn't mean his policies will work any better.

      Its going to be Mitt Romney for the candidate, who is going to lose to Obama.

      If you want change, vote for a majority of non-crazy, non-assholes in congress. Real leaders lead from the center. I'm hoping Obama was just playing to everyone in power for the first term, and will tear shit up in the second.

      Of course, hope is not a real strategy...direct action is.

    • 4 months ago
  • ecoalex
    • 0
      ecoalex  

    • Too bad Obama chose all the wrong people,had secret meetings with pharma,the ins cos,the banksters and hired only ex Goldman Sachs cronies.

      Obama reversed on torture,prosecutions,medical marijuana whistle blowers you name it.

      Obama Did a rope a dope when the country needed a leader a FDR.

      Is it any wonder Ron Paul's message is attractive to the people tired of the reversals and betrayals?

      That said if a repig wins,or steals the 2012 election,it's over with a kangaroo SCOTUS. 2 justices at least will retire in the next 4 years.

      Game set match.

      Disgusting tho is Obama knows he'll win,the alternative is worse the majority knows it.

      This election is about $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

      Obama has the most $$$$ he got it the old fashion way ;he did what he was told ,and kissed a lot of ass,and did not prosecute the banksters.

    • 4 months ago
  • Paratus
    • -4
      Paratus  
    • ecoalex:

      You guys and your incorrect mantra that Bush stole that election with the help of SCOTUS. I was with you until your foolish "repig" rant. If the Demoncrats win we loose. If the Demoncrats loose they will litigate and litigate until hamsters fly convinced that the electorate in this country could not possibly kick their idiot policies to the curb. I say this due to the continuing incorrect belief re SCOTUS as I stated in my first sentence. Dems HAVE to allege that any election they loose is stolen. Perish the thought that the people in this country would be so aware of consequences that they would not want these policies. Kick the statists out. Anyone but Barry Soetoro in November.

    • 4 months ago
  • wally60
    • +1
      wally60  

    • romney will lose to obama.ron would pull all the people together that dont like the other two.the powers that control the good old usa wont have any part of ron paul.

    • 4 months ago
  • JohnA
  • unimatrix0
  • dugdog47
  • bailey78
  • JohnA
  • remanns
  • remanns
  • remanns
  • joeredford
  • fiberbundle
    • +6
      fiberbundle  

    • "Here, I give you ten solid reasons why even liberals and progressives are supporting Ron Paul."

      Maybe liberals; but certainly not Progressives. This is a list of triviality. Progressives are concerned about the basic way human beings are treated their dignity; their welfare; the survival of the human race and the prosperity of ALL our children.. Not a bunch of contrarian hippy lifestyle unimportant details wrapped in social Darwinian blanket. (Pigs in a blanket).

      Ron Paul is a distraction. Not a solution.

      Progressives stay strong and focused and don't waste your vote or your time with a personality cult.

    • 4 months ago
  • JohnA
  • fiberbundle
    • +3
      fiberbundle  
    • JohnA:

      Ron "Goldfinger" loves only gold. He likes his son. But he loves gold. He likes all his followers; but he'd trade anyone of you for a lump of gold. Why follow the ideology of such a man?

    • 4 months ago
  • JustZ
    • +2
      JustZ  
    • fiberbundle:

      Outstanding response fiberbundle! You are spot on my friend.

      Progressives desire 'progress' for all of humanity. The only way to move forward as a species...is to provide an enlightened and equal society for all.

    • 4 months ago
  • JohnA
  • JohnA
  • fiberbundle
    • +1
      fiberbundle  
    • JohnA:

      I think Ron Paul would die peacefully if his cause of death was the same as Vincente de Valverde who was a Spanish bishop. Making his way to Panama, he halted for a brief stay at the Island of Puná, near Guayaquil in Ecuador, where he was put to death by the Indians on 31 October 1541. According to some sources, the oppressed Indians revolted, captured Valverde, and poured molten gold down his throat as a punishment to greed. Now that's old school Austrian.

    • 4 months ago
  • maasanova
  • JustZ
    • +1
      JustZ  

    • I'm sure looking forward to the day after Obama wins reelection... for one: because we'll no longer have to put up with the constant bombardment of desperate citizens who can't see the forest for the trees... as they try to prop Ron Paul up as their latest greatest savior to our land.

      Sorry Ron; you can't live with the foxes and expect the chickens to trust you.

    • 4 months ago
  • JohnA
    • -2
      JohnA  
    • JustZ:

      Yes, those damned desparate citizens wanting freedom and liberty. Why can they just shut up and allow the status quo to erode their civil liberties like the rest of us?

    • 4 months ago
  • JustZ
    • 0
      JustZ  
    • JohnA:

      yea... you'll get all kinds of civil liberties under Ron Paul.

      Just don't call the damn fire department if your house burns down. And don't whine when your kids are illiterate because Cletus the slack jawed yokel is your mayor and he doesn't believe your kids need a proper education. And enjoy your civil liberties when toxic waste in that river behind your house begins to give your family cancer since there's no pesky EPA to stop them.

      Yea, you go enjoy Ron Paul's civil liberties. The rest of us live in the real world where there are consequences.

    • 4 months ago
  • JohnA
    • -3
      JohnA  
    • JustZ:

      As I said to someone else, saying that Ron Paul wants to get rid of the fire department and public education is just patently false and intellectually dishonest. No one has called for the destruction of the federal government, the debate is about the size and scope of it, and you know it. You want a big government to wipe your ass for you, I do not. No one has said it needs to be gotten rid of altogether, so stop using that strawman arguement, because it's a false arguement and we all know it.

    • 4 months ago
  • misfit20
    • +1
      misfit20  
    • JustZ:

      Still think the Board of Education provides quality education?
      How did the EPA hold BP accountable for the oil spill?
      You are right, in the real world there are consequences, which is why people need PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY
      The fire department has already been letting homes burn down when homeowners forget to pay the "fire department" tax

    • 4 months ago
  • ThatCrazyLibertarian
  • remanns
  • remanns
  • JustZ
    • +1
      JustZ  

    • I believe we'll all see how wrong you are on election night when President Obama is reelected.

      Ron Paul has been exposed for what he truly is. As such, Paul won't even get the GOP nomination... much less become the next POTUS.

    • 4 months ago
  • dugdog47
  • noxidereus
    • +5
      noxidereus  

    • I support neither Ron Paul nor Obama. I do think it is absolutely worthwhile to point out where Paul is more progressive than Obama. It solidly demonstrates how horrible Obama is on these issues. It strikes dead the illusion that Obama is progressive and pisses on its corpse. That doesn't mean, however, that most liberals/progressives will allow themselves to perceive this sad reality. The group mentality of us vs the "others" has far too strong a grip on peoples' minds (by design). That is why the 2 party system of the elite is never going to be defeated.

      Since most of the issues described in this article have bipartisan agreement, they otherwise would never even be talked about, making it far too easy for liberals to "forget" what a son of a bitch Obama is. The only reason why Obama isn't considered a right-wing extremist is because of the ridiculously conservative nonsense that is masquerading as the current political center. I however see Obama as the right-wing extremist wall street puppet war criminal that he is.

    • 4 months ago
  • tverdell
    • -1
      tverdell  
    • noxidereus:

      I don't think of ron paul as a progressive. I just think that progressives and libertarians agree on a lot of issues but for different reasons. For the 10 issues listed above, libertarians and progressives may agree but I bet for different reasoning.

      Another example, If ron paul were progressive, he would be active in sustainable energy and the environment.

      But at the end of the day, I would give in on issues like the environment and perhaps the idea of ron paul even being a racist in exchange for the repeal of the patriot act.

      This is how ron paul can win this progressive vote. Sad, but true.

    • 4 months ago
  • VFORVENDETTA
  • noxidereus
  • tverdell
  • Radical_Centrist
  • tverdell
    • 0
      tverdell  
    • Radical_Centrist:

      give me a little credit, I googled ron Paul and oil subsidies.
      Apparently dr Paul believes tax breaks are not subsidies, technically he is is right, but not in spirit.

      I was disappointed to find this out recently.

    • 4 months ago
  • Radical_Centrist
    • +1
      Radical_Centrist  
    • tverdell:

      Considering if it were up to Dr. Paul there would be no "income" tax at all I am not surprised he supports Tax breaks for EVERYBODY. Tax Breaks & Subsidies are not the same thing! In one case you get to keep your own money in the other you get to keep someone else's!

    • 4 months ago
  • tverdell
  • ComradeKusnetsov
  • tverdell
  • ComradeKusnetsov
  • joeredford
    • +2
      joeredford [removed]  
    • ComradeKusnetsov:

      Considering libertarians have never elected anybody to any office of importance and never will, I'd be careful of criticizing those who attempt to do something for their country. I hope one of these days we elect another incompetent Bush , so you can find out about REAL corruption , cronyism and war. But you won't recognize the difference because you are too busy living in your non-existent Utopia to recognize the reality in front of your face.
      Tell me, what are you Paulbots going to do when Paul loses the Republican nomination, and then refuses to run a third party candidacy, since his most important goal is to protect his idiot son's reputation in the Republican party for the future, and you realize he's just another political bullshit artist who conned all of you? Will you cry, comrade? Disillusionment is a bitch , isn't it?

    • 4 months ago
  • joeredford
    • +1
      joeredford [removed]  
    • ComradeKusnetsov:

      Wow. You are laboring under some truly grand illusions. From what liberterrorists piece of propoganda did you glean that Jefferson and Washington were Libertarians? Perhaps you should read a history book or even use the Google. They were both Democrat-Republicans with the opposing party being Federalists. There were no Libertarian Founding Fathers. No Libertarian has ever controlled this country, if you believe that they have, you are in deep denial.

      Being a law abiding citizen with no terrorist designs, I am not in the least bit concerned with the NDAA. I try hard not to allow paranoid fantasies of the right or left wing extremists to color my judgement. I have REAL threats to my rights that are of concern to me from the party that actually has some power, the Republican party; a party of right wing lunatics that wishes to strip away every advancement of the past 100 years and is actually close enough to power to obtain their goals. That worries me, not the imaginary delusions of the extreme left wing.

      Is it possible to have a conversation with you without your descending into Obama rants? You are obsessed with him. It's not healthy. Anyone who actually listened to his speeches , or watched the debates in 2008 , and came away with the impression that Obama was anything other than an old fashioned liberal democrat, not a freaking revolutionary., wasn't listening. You read way too much into the word " change." Change is not necessarily revolutionary. It can be slow and tedious. I should know , I've been fighting for it for 40 years. I am not disappointed with Obama because my expectations were realistic and under control. I had no illusions that the country was going to change overnight. Anyone who thinks it will , or can, has no understanding of American history or of American politics. Your disappointment is your problem because you expected too much, that will always lead to being let down.

      If you believe that Rand Paul's one vote in the Senate against the NDAA outweighs the other 70
      ludicrous votes to deny the people of their costitutional protections, you have no perspective. None.

      If you think that calling me an Obamabot is insulting and offends me, I can assure you that it doesn't. Also, if you honestly believe that nothing has changed in the past 3 years you aren't looking. That would eliminate your constant need to bitch and moan and whine about everything and we can't have that , now can we? And, yes, I do expect more to change in a second term, gradual , plodding change like all the other change that has been the signiture of the American political system since it inception.

      BTW. Your comment " You are dismissed comrade" ? Absolutely hilarious.....if you're a 14 year old.

    • 4 months ago
  • ComradeKusnetsov
  • joeredford
    • 0
      joeredford [removed]  
    • ComradeKusnetsov:

      I have studied Libertarians and Libertarianism for over 40 years, and that is exactly why I despise it. Your in your own little box, don't accuse others of your own failures. I have my beliefs which are too mainstream for an extremist to relate to. You have yours, which history has proven to be wrong. End of story.

    • 4 months ago
  • ComradeKusnetsov
  • joeredford
    • 0
      joeredford [removed]  
    • Image
    • ComradeKusnetsov:

      In case you didn't notice that was my not-so-subtle way of ending the dialogue with you.
      I stopped bangng my head against that wall 30 years ago,when I grew up and became a recovering Libertarian. My life became so much more productive after abandoning that crippling addiction. One actually can begin to see both sides of an issue and arrive at a rational conclusion.
      If you decide to " go straight" I highly recommend it, however withdrawl from an idealogy can be a real bitch. I suggest Libertarians Anonymous.

    • 4 months ago
  • ComradeKusnetsov
  • joeredford
  • trut
    • -3
      trut  

    • Ron Paul is far and away the BEST Republican candidate. If any of you haters posting below can think of a better candidate, have at it.

    • 4 months ago
  • noxidereus
  • JustZ
    • +4
      JustZ  
    • trut:

      "Ron Paul is far and away the BEST Republican candidate."

      Well, that's not saying much is it; LMAO.

      All the GOP candidate this election...are crazy as a March hares! The organized crime known as the GOP enabled and caused the global economic meltdown we're seeing today. So it's time for Rethuglicans to sit down and shut up.

    • 4 months ago
  • Anonmaly
    • 0
      Anonmaly  

    • "Polls Show Ron Paul Does Better Against Obama Than ANY Of The Other Republican Candidates"

      At least according to Countdown....

    • 4 months ago
  • Anonmaly
  • PetEr_Alan_ColE
    • +3
      PetEr_Alan_ColE  

    • I hear people below saying Paul doesn't care about Civil rights, yet Obama and his supporters go around defending the indefinite detention bill. And they want people to believe they give a dam about civil rights. Why are people who are not Americans not allowed civil rights under O and the Dems? Gitmo, is that O's supporters idea of civil rights. How about Drones. Is that their civil rights program in action?

    • 4 months ago
  • Buddha2112
    • 0
      Buddha2112  
    • PetEr_Alan_ColE:

      It's only right if they're doing it, and they benefit from it. Quick, disregard anything unless the government approved it first. Apparently a lack of faith in their fellow humanity has led liberals, democrats, even neo-cons into forced morality across the board. Talk about a negative world view... Progress my ass...

    • 4 months ago
  • Saladin
  • artemis6
  • JohnA
  • JustZ
  • MotherForTruth
  • timelord999
  • JohnA
    • -5
      JohnA  
    • timelord999:

      What is phony baloney is to suggest anyone at all is advocating getting rid of public roads and schools, or stopping generating electricy. It is a scare tactic used by those afraid of life without the federal government telling them when to take a crap. There is a purpose for government, of course there is, and no one is saying there is not. The role and scope of government is what is at debate. You like the federal government holding your hand and wiping your ass, I don't. Stop pretending anyone is for getting rid of it altogether, that is not the case and you know it.

    • 4 months ago
  • MSII
  • timelord999
  • joeredford
  • JohnA
    • -2
      JohnA  
    • joeredford:

      It might interest you to know, I have never voted for a Republican canidate for President. I voted for Al Gore in the '88 Democratic primary. I voted for Bill Clinton twice, and would have voted for him a third time. I voted for Al again in 2000. I like Al, why do you think I first got on Current? I voted for John Kerry in 2004. I supported Hillary in 2008, and when the DNC stole the nomination she won and gave it to Obama, I voted for Ralph Nader, because I was not going to vote for a canidate who had no business being President just because he had a D behind his name. Ron Paul is the only canidate that even remotely espouses an anti-war, balanced budget, free trade, get the government out of your personal fucking life, agenda. If you have a better canidate, I am totally open to suggestions. But sorry to break it to you, Obama isn't it.

    • 4 months ago
  • JohnA
    • 0
      JohnA  
    • timelord999:

      Barack Obama said he wants to shut down the Department of Commerce today. And six other bureacracies. Do you know anything at all about who you are supporting? Too little too late and waited until an election year, true. But where do you think those ideas came from?

    • 4 months ago
  • joeredford
    • +1
      joeredford [removed]  
    • JohnA:

      Your obsessed with Obama, not me , I didn't bring him up, you did. So, you voted for Nader, thanks for 8 years of W hell and a ruined economy. Don't expect me to tell you who to vote for, all I know is that Paul is a moron and is the antithesis of Hillary, Kerry and Gore. You think Hillary is voting for Paul? Don't think so. The limited government party is the Republican party. The NO government party is the Libertarians. Seems to me you have been voting for people who don't believe in what you believe in ,because Clinton,Kerry and Gore are not anti-government. It's none of my damned business who you vote for, all I know is that if you want limited government you are barking up the wrong trees and have been for a long time.

    • 4 months ago
  • JohnA
    • 0
      JohnA  
    • joeredford:

      I voted for Nader is 2008, not 2000, and only because there was no other choice. I saw no difference in Obama and Bush and guess what, I was right. I vote for the best available canidate, and it is not Obama.

    • 4 months ago
  • joeredford
    • +1
      joeredford [removed]  
    • JohnA:

      By process of elimination " the best available candidate " will be Obama. Paul will not receive the Republican nomination, and he will not run 3rd party because he wants his evil offspring Rand to be able to stay in the Republican party. Once the Paulbots realize that Paul will betray them and endorses a Republican, they will really be pissed and cry like little babbies who just lost their nursemaids.

    • 4 months ago
  • joeredford
    • +1
      joeredford [removed]  
    • MotherForTruth:

      No we don't . We fear Libertarians who are blinded by the light of cultist politicians to the point they can't recognize they are being conned by the corrupt Mr.Paul, who is soon going to die, and wants his evil progeny Rand to take over the throne as King of the Deluded Liberterrorists. Waiting for a third party candidacy? Don't hold your breath. He's not going to do anything to interfere with Rand's future with the Republican party. It's all about power for the Pauls and nothing else.

    • 4 months ago
  • joeredford
  • JohnA
  • JohnA
    • 0
      JohnA  
    • joeredford:

      How you can say that after the last three years, I will never understand. Oh yeah, they disagree with you so they are "evil". You've been watching to much MSNBC, your brain is starting to rot.

    • 4 months ago
  • joeredford
  • joeredford
  • MotherForTruth
  • joeredford
  • AliceBToklass
  • PetEr_Alan_ColE
  • artemis6
    • +2
      artemis6  
    • PetEr_Alan_ColE:

      Obama is not liberal . Lumping ALL democrats into a group is no way to judge . Franken is liberal ... you would have to ask about them individually , and i suspect you do not really mean to do that . Elisabeth Warren or Rocky Anderson seem middle of the road , but at least they are CLEAN of corporate taint . There are no more liberals , EXCEPT in Occupy .

    • 4 months ago
  • JustZ
  • artemis6
    • +2
      artemis6  
    • JustZ:

      They are liberal , yes , Alan is not in the game right now is he ? Sanders won't live forever . Good dudes though . I wish they were running . They know better though , it would be an exercise in futility at this point . Occupy needs to do a bit more ground work . Lay the foundation for real transformation . THAT is why they are desperately trying to censor the internet as fast as they can . The real threat to the current powers , is US . They will run out of money before WE run out of time unless they can disconnect us . Critical mass is close .

    • 4 months ago
  • timelord999
  • artemis6
  • navider
  • artemis6
  • JohnA
    • -2
      JohnA  
    • navider:

      Paul a corporate tool? Take a look at Obama's and Romney's top 10 campaign contributors, then take a look at Dr. Paul's and tell me again who are the corporate tools here.

    • 4 months ago
  • MotherForTruth
  • artemis6
  • joeredford
  • artemis6
    • +3
      artemis6  
    • ComradeKusnetsov:

      Hateful ? Unfettered greed is what i hate . Politicians in general are just puppets . Someone like Elisabeth Warren is feared because she really is not a puppet . A female would never get the support the military has lavished on Mr. Paul . They will expect him to deliver . And Like Obama before him , who was wall street funded , he too would deliver . Mister Paul has been working it for a while now . I am still investigating Rocky Anderson . My point is , why do you not explore other options ?

    • 4 months ago
  • joeredford
  • MotherForTruth
  • joeredford
  • misfit20
  • MotherForTruth
123
1 - 100 of 229
more from Community:
from the community

top videos