Just shows how the GOP is so stupid enough to elect a flip-flopper fo the nomination (using fraud, intimidation and constant changing of rules to help him), instead of not doing those things against the supporters of a candidate who is geniune, knows the true problems of the USA, is able to get the support of many young people(whihc would be positive for the GOP) and, either you like him or you dislike him, never changed his views (Ron Paul). And why this happens? Because there are certain forces behind all of this, who want Romney (whose political ideals are not many different from Obama) to win. Because even if Romney would won, little would change.
I think Romney does support abortion he just has to be against for the election then after he will turn back to pro-choice.
What, do you think I´m talking like the crazy conspiracy theorists? I´m talking about the influence of the corporations behind the two-party system of America.
You are. Unions and voter demographics have just as much influence on policy and and the state of our parties as corporate entities do. One could even argue that voter demographics surpass all others in influence.
I agree with you, but I would like to point out that even in a minimum state society, the interests of the rich go against the interests of the poor, and the wealthy will -always- find a way to create some system to protect their interests, whether official or not. Blame the system, not the state. Edit: Your post came up just as I posted this..
http://newhampshireprimary.blogspot.com/2011/12/ron-paul-global-warming-flip-flop.html I have said this a thousand fucking times to you, look at your own damn candidate. Edit: From another source... * In the 2008 Values Voter Debate he said he would defend Israel if she were attacked. He has now reversed that position. In fact, he's even said that the Israelis have no right to keep weapons from entering Hamas-run Gaza, since Hamas was elected to power. * In 2008 and earlier, Ron Paul accepted MMGW as a sufficiently established scientific fact. Now he says there's considerable doubt about MMGW. Using the draconian standard that the purists apply to all other candidates, this is a "flip-flop." * In 2008 and earlier, he defended DADT. But when it recently came up for a vote, he voted to repeal it and said he had no problem with gsys serving openly in the military. * He has been all over the map on the border fence. Sometimes he has voiced support for the fence, but at other times he's said he finds the very idea of a fence "offensive." In one recent debate he even said that the border fence could be seen as a symbol of an "anti-Hispanic" mentality. * He has railed against earmarks. But, he has been one of the bigger porkers of earmarks in Congress. Even worse, on many occasions he's had pork for his district inserted into a bill and then he's turned around and voted against that same bill (when he knew his No vote would not matter). Now, humm, what is that??? * On gay marriage, if you go back to his 2008 interviews and writings on the subject and look at what he's said on the subject in this campaign, he has been back and forth and forth and back--all over the globe and then some. At one point he wrote--yes, wrote--that he'd support the federal marriage amendment if liberal judges began to chip away at DOMA. This is no longer his position. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=se0NqJFMAlg * In 2001 he introduced a bill that would have allowed Congress to authorize the President to not only specifically target Bin Laden and his associates but to do so with non-government armed forces. Yet, after the successful Bin Laden raid a few months ago, he said flat-out that he would not have ordered the raid but that he would have called up the Pakistanis and tried to get their cooperation. Watch him dance all over Kentucky when asked about his comment on Fox News Sunday: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=858-9972OGs Oh, okay: So the Bin Laden raid was not "wrong" but it was "unnecessary" and "violated the rule of law"! Uh-huh. That's "consistency"??? As for his ludicrous claim that we could have trusted the Pakistanis to help us get Bin Laden because they had helped us before, that's a jaw dropper. Their "help" was slow and reluctant, and while they gave us some AQ people they let many others run around unmolested and they funded and trained--and continue to fund and train--Taliban fighters who have killed American soldiers. I suggest Paul and his staff watch the very recent BBC documentary Secret Pakistan: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=CQ_mzOaf8Js
