Tancredo and Ron Paul

Trip · Post by **Trip** » Tue Jan 23, 2007 3:10 pm

Tancredo and Ron Paul are running or thinking of running for the GOP 2008 presidential nomination.

I probably prefer Ron Paul to Tancredo because of the war issue, but I like both.

I had also said earlier that Obama would be the next president. I'm changing that prediction to Hilary because new information surfaced: Obama's middle name is Hussein and he went to a Muslim school some time in childhood. Whether such things should or shouldn't matter, this connection to Islam will prevent him from becoming president IMHO.

Also, Romney seems to be vying for the conservative vote as well. Here's the anti-Romney video that's floating around you tube. Romney seems to be the most likely GOP candidate IMO, but I doubt I'd vote for him if he won the GOP nomination.

If anyone has any dirt or knowledge of these or other 2008 candidates, feel free to post =p

I have seen Tancredo's "bomb Mecca if nuked by a fanatical Muslim" comment.

Kaleid · Post by **Kaleid** » Wed Jan 24, 2007 1:06 pm

Gotta give kudos to Ron Paul for warning about another 'gulf of Tonkin' indicent so that war against Iran can be waged:

On Thursday, January 11, 2007, Congressman Ron Paul of Texas (R) (but he's really a Libertarian) hit the house floor and put on the record what many Americans fear might be coming down the pipe; a new Gulf of Tonkin incident to initiate a shooting war with Iran.

"The truth is that Iran, like Iraq, is a third-world nation without a significant military. Nothing in history hints that she is likely to invade a neighboring country, let alone America or Israel. I am concerned, however, that a contrived Gulf of Tonkin- type incident may occur to gain popular support for an attack on Iran."

http://www.911blogger.com/node/5575

And asking for a new, real 9/11 investigation:

"CALLER: I want a complete, impartial, and totally independent investigation of the events of September 11, 2001 . I'm tired of this bogus garbage about terrorism. Ask Michael Meacher about how he feels about this bogus war on terrorism. Can you comment on that please?

HON. DR. RON PAUL: Well, that would be nice to have. Unfortunately, we don't have that in place. It will be a little bit better now with the Democrats now in charge of oversight. But you know, for top level policy there's not a whole lot of difference between the two policies so a real investigation isn't going to happen. But I think we have to keep pushing for it. And like you and others, we see the investigations that have been done so far as more or less cover-up and no real explanation of what went on.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/5648

So, count him out already. There's no way in hell he has any chance to win.

Trip · Post by **Trip** » Fri Jan 26, 2007 1:46 am

He's a libertarian but a very reasonable one. I'm right wing and fit his stances fairly well. I'm probably in favor of tighter drug control though, but that's a minor issue.

oh dang... yea he's just too honest to be a politician. What a slip up gees!

That's as bad as Tancredo getting his picture taken in South Carolina (my state) among a crowd waving rebel flags (the losing side of the US "Civil" War) while singing "Dixie" (losing side's anthem).

I kid you not

America needs someone sneaky enough to get elected who transforms into an honest statesman once elected.

Example: Say: 9/11 is an open and shut case. I saw the plane.
Do: start up a full investigation.

Trip · Post by **Trip** » Fri Jan 26, 2007 11:09 am

The election is about the candidates and not about the South. The Southern issue should be handled elsewhere. Tancredo ought to avoid the rebel flag completely.

EDIT: Removed defense-of-South rant. Everyone knows my stance on the "Civil War" by now lol.

Post by **NeilBlanchard** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 10:01 am

Hello,

Trip wrote:I had also said earlier that Obama would be the next president. I'm changing that prediction to Hilary because new information surfaced: Obama's middle name is Hussein and he went to a Muslim school some time in childhood. Whether such things should or shouldn't matter, this connection to Islam will prevent him from becoming president IMHO.

What you say about Barak Obama attending a Muslim school is apparently a rumor, that may have been started by a web site/magazine called Insight Magazine. To quote the Wikipedia page for Barak Obama:

For details of Obama's early primary schooling see Obama (1995), p. 154, which begins: "In Indonesia, I had spent two years at a Muslim school, two years at a Catholic school..." See also Obama (2006), p. 274, which begins: "Our family was not well off in those early years [...] Without the money to attend the international schools that most expatriate children attended, I went to local Indonesian schools..."

So, let's nip the rumor, okay?

Another source:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/ ... index.html

Trip · Post by **Trip** » Fri Feb 02, 2007 2:22 am

Oh wow I'm surprised since Indonesia is fairly Muslim. Thanks for posting this.

This is why it's good to have such a diverse SPCR membership

(Neil is a Dem)

He was registered as a Muslim at Fransiskus Assisis however.

ABC wrote:The document required that each student choose one of five state-sanctioned religions when registering - Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Catholic or Protestant. Gibbs said he wasn't sure why the document had Obama listed as a Muslim.

from here. Also, his stepfather whom he was living with at the time was Muslim.

While I hadn't looked into this and appreciate your pointing this out, I still believe his being listed as a Muslim at the Catholic school and having a Muslim step-father is too much baggage. Any tie with Islam is going to be devastating for a candidate at the moment.

By the way, my grandfather, independent of me, also predicted Obama would become the next president. Obama is truly presidential material who says exactly what voters want to hear. Beside a bumbling Edwards a dim Kerry or a dry Hilary, he's brilliant. Also, I think the race factor is a small plus not a minus.

Trip · Post by **Trip** » Fri Feb 02, 2007 3:19 am

Neil,

could you vote for Ron Paul?

Unlike Tancredo who could be portrayed as a right wing nut and Bush-like (war and patriot act), Ron Paul has the potential to win a majority. I suppose he could be labeled a libertarian nut... but he's truly not all that extreme. I wouldn't call Ron Paul moderate, but he is reasonable.

Post by **NeilBlanchard** » Fri Feb 02, 2007 3:51 am

Hello,

I am registered as an independent voter, FYI.

I have no idea who Ron Paul is -- I've never heard of him before this thread, nor Tancredo, either. So, I couldn't vote vote for him at the moment.

I too, feel that there is a good chance that Barack Obama will be the next president -- I thought that as I watched him speak at the Democratic Convention. And it is not because he says what I "want" to hear -- it is because it is clear to me that he speaks based on what he believes; and it is very clear that he does not say things that his pollsters tell him to say.

He is not a cynical politician; just a politician.

Trip · Post by **Trip** » Sat Feb 03, 2007 4:24 am

I guess they don't get much mass media coverage

I'll have to look back at what Obama supports, but there's no way he actually believes what he says... No politician with any chance of winning would be foolish enough to do that

Ron Paul and Tancredo I suspect say more of what they truly believe than others, but they are a different kind of politician. They're like right wing Naders and would require a populist movement and very unusual circumstances to win IMO.

That said, Tancredo did back Bush's war like the rest of the crooks (no way he really believed that was best, but he caved into the pressure). Ron Paul, proving that he is indeed a kook not a crook, voted against the war. Kook that he is, even Ron Paul probably isn't entirely honest about, say, his thoughts on 9/11.

Tancredo's famous among immigration restrictionists and has played the leading role in the house. Ron Paul is famous for his incredibly principled stances. He's officially libertarian, but not in bed with big business, in favor of open borders, or in favor of much of the free trade that currently benefits big business. He's also pro-life and, more importantly, votes that way.

Sorry I called you a Dem, and thanks for reading all of this. I'm sure you find Tancredo and Ron Paul as boring as I find commentary on Hilary and Obama :p

Anyway, immigration is more or less the easiest issue to judge a right wing candidate. Not surprising, the Dems often score better than the big business Republicans, here.

AZBrandon · Post by **AZBrandon** » Sat Feb 03, 2007 6:45 pm

I still don't understand why Condoleezza Rice doesn't at least hint at running. A lot of folks would vote for Hillary so we can have our first woman president and a lot would vote for Obama so we can have our first black president. A vote for Condi would get you both those at the same time! She seems fairly moderate too, not a radical by any means. Such a shame she won't even entertain the notion.

Trip · Post by **Trip** » Mon Feb 05, 2007 5:45 am

While her foreign affair stance would be about identical to her opponent, she'd somehow be labeled "more of the same" as if there was a material difference.

She could perhaps win, but how would she differ from any of the other candidates?

AZBrandon · Post by **AZBrandon** » Mon Feb 05, 2007 7:28 am

Has anyone won the presidential race by being decidedly "different" from every other politician? It seems like getting elected president requires you to be a lot of "more of the same" as everyone else anyway. Every candidate will have a base of something like 40% of the vote. That's not enough to win, to win you need some 11% of the center. In order to get the center you have to look moderate and appealing to people who are by nature kind of wishy-washy and vote by emotion. I think a properly run campaign could get Rice in the big chair by winning that 11%.

Trip · Post by **Trip** » Mon Feb 05, 2007 8:58 am

At the moment Bush is very unpopular, and she is identified closely with Bush. If she could spin the war issue and make it clear that her opponent also supported the war and doesn't differ materially on it then perhaps she could win. She'd have to move the election focus to a different issue, and maybe distance herself from Bush...

My point was just: what would it matter if she or a dem won?
---
I'm not sure that it's so much a moderate is needed to win the swing voters (I'd probably be included as swing since I'm not R or D) as the moderate stances get the money that's needed to win.

The reason I think this is that certain issues such as immigration are mostly ignored despite being very popular among the citizenry. I think the parties favor the immigration largely because of the cheap labor it provides agri-business and such.

AZBrandon · Post by **AZBrandon** » Mon Feb 05, 2007 9:42 am

Have any Republicans officially announced they are running for president yet? Just curious, the news has mainly just been covering Obama/Clinton as the top runners. In fact now that I put those names next to each other, that could be for many the dream ticket, regardless of which name is at the top of the ticket.

While you wouldn't have a black woman as president, you would have one or the other as president and the other as vice president. This is a big emotional issue for a lot of people, so just gender and skin color will win them both tons of votes. Together, they may be unstoppable regardless of who the GOP or Libertarian party throws out there.

Trip · Post by **Trip** » Mon Feb 05, 2007 10:03 am

I think the skin and sex of the candidate is a small plus only, but I could be wrong. With some voters such a combination might be a negative. I wonder if a dream ticket wouldn't be a minority candidate (sex, race, or both) with a male WASP vice president. That way the candidate seems more of an individual and American who just 'happens' to be a little different. A Hilary/Obama ticket might be too different and turn people away.

Those thoughts are unfounded lol.

---
Ron Paul is running for the GOP nomination not Libertarian this time.

Err, that is to say he's thinking of running for the nomination and has set up an exploratory committee. I don't think anyone has declared himself running yet.

I'm hoping Ron Paul or Tancredo capture the issues debated if not the nomination itself. Tancredo's issue: border; Ron Paul's: war.

Who knows, if public opinion takes a dive on the border or the war, one of them could sail in I guess. Buchanan did pretty well at the start of... 92 or 96 primary. He supposedly was too extreme to win, but now I'm beginning to realise that most hold their noses when voting anyway.

---
Reading the politics1 poll numbers from American Research Group, Clinton and Giuliani are the forerunners. (politics1 is a Dem leaning site but useful)

AZBrandon · Post by **AZBrandon** » Mon Feb 05, 2007 2:21 pm

All very interesting information. As for the politics1 poll being Dem based, that's not a bad thing if all we're talking is who will win the nomination. I'm sure nobody knows Democratic voter habits better than a polling firm that specializes in working with the Democratic party anyway. I forgot all about Giuliani. NY vs NY? Weird. Neither would have the home court advantage... sorta. Giuliani's certainly lived there longer I suppose.

I'm pondering on your mention of the issues defining and trying to figure what the next big issue is. The economy is always an issue and although everything is clear sailing right now and many are happy with their huge home value gains in the last year or so, a collapse in housing or a market correction (many analysts are predicting a 10% or greater correction this year) could bring "economy" back up as a big issue.

Crime doesn't seem to be an issue that gets any press anymore, same for personal firearm ownership rights, although I suppose those two issues go hand in hand. Isn't Bush saying he wants to have our troops out of Iraq in a year or so? If we're out by next February that would take the wind out of anyone's sails that was running on any sort of war policy since it would have been forgotten by the November elections anyway. The border will always be there however, but that's an issue that I can't picture there being any unity on unless or until a major terrorist attack is proven to be caused by the nearly open border.

Even here in Arizona where the news recently reported that Phoenix is the USA's primary hub in the underage sex slave trade, not to mention a hot point for cops getting blown away, a major fatal shootout on the highway a couple years ago, and drugs all over the place, securing the border is very unpopular. This may have a lot to do with the fact I've read that up to a quarter of the current population is from outside the USA, either legally or otherwise.

So the border may not be a good issue to stand on if nobody thinks it's a problem and the war may not be a good issue if it's over by the election anyway.

So changing gears, what issue(s) are the Democrats running on? I'm sure they are as anti-war as they were in the last election, but again, that may be a non-issue by next November. Do they have anything to rally the troops behind and stand on to show why their party is better than the other? Will Hillary push on socialized medicine again? That one will certainly be popular with some folks and with enough media hype you could probably win the swing vote with that. She'd be out of office before anyone even knew what a disaster it is anyway, at which point she'd blame it on whoever comes after her and say they screwed it up.

Trip · Post by **Trip** » Fri Feb 09, 2007 12:41 pm

politics1 is a helpful site. I was just noting that it leans Democrat.

I think the war will be a big issue. It looks like we're going to be there for awhile and that Bush might even pick a fight with Iran or at least Syria. Americans can back preventing nukes in Iran more readily than they can spreading democracy, and Iran is a major regional power. Why we'll do that or how that'll be accomplished is beyond me, but we sure do seem Hawkish to Iran.

Health care will probably be big if Romney runs against Hilary, but I've kinda ignored that issue since I don't think the government should even have a health plan

Trade, the deficit, and pork could be important as well. I guess a lot could happen really.

Polls I've seen on immigration show Americans favoring border security, the elimination of illegal immigration, and even the reduction of legal immigration. I'll do a google search and see if I'm not deluding myself but that's what my memory vaguely tells me.

However, whenever a candidate stands up to oppose immigration, he's labeled as racist which immediately turns people off. When Tancredo says something, it's brought up that the Nazis also support that, but I never hear people say the Communists support the opposite... (who cares what freaks who label themselves such things think anyway? Anyone who isn't a globalist ought to realise the US can't provide for and house the world. Also, immigration isn't a positive in any way so the less the better is a standard, again for any who aren't globalists.)

Likewise, abortion and even marriage seem to hold a majority that are pro-life and anti-gay marriage, yet candidates who take different stances are still accepted.

I think the American public wants someone who is electable

American's want 'their' party to win and will accept any candidate as long as he seems to lean closer to their views than his potential alternative clone.

Reality and theory are conflicting with my political predictions a little (I'd thought immigration, abortion, and the war would be more important). Reality must be wrong.

Trip · Post by **Trip** » Sat Feb 10, 2007 9:50 am

I've heard Guiliani probably won't be filing for a run due to his age, due to his leftist stances, and due to skeletons in his closet such as his previous marriage.

Gingrich and McCain seem a little crazy to me, but I suppose they could win. My prediction is still Romney despite his lowly stance at 10%.

I also found a political site that fits me (traditionalist and intelligent while not racist - something surprisingly difficult to find...)

So I'll express my political thoughts there instead of spamming new threads here from now on I think

Oh and it looks like Ron Paul has less support than Tancredo so I'm going with Tancredo. I'd probably prefer Ron Paul slightly, but I'm not sure he has even as much of a chance as Tancredo. Also, Tancredo has accomplished quite a bit.

klankymen · Post by **klankymen** » Sat Feb 10, 2007 10:54 am

pity about giuliani, he's probably the only republican I would vote, and would be happy with in office.... I wonder if he could do something again with his crimestopping reputation (although I believe thats not entirely founded in truth either though)

Trip · Post by **Trip** » Sat Feb 10, 2007 11:22 am

Social issues and open borders aside, I've heard Guiliani's a bit of a war hawk.

Isn't the war the reason most dislike the GOP?

clayrains · Post by **clayrains** » Sun Feb 11, 2007 7:18 pm

It's not surprising that you not many people know anything about Ron Paul, and it should be no surprise that the media has done an absolute blackout on the fact he's running for president. He actually respects the Constitution and follows it to the letter -- exactly why the government-controlled media is purposely ignoring him.

Instead, all we hear about is Barack Obama. Is the media now talking about him endlessly because people are really interested in him, or because they want us to be interested in him? Which came first, the chicken or the egg? The public is being conditioned. The media knows most dumbed-down Americans will vote for whichever name they hear the most. If you think Barack Obama would make a good president--think again. Check his atrocious voting record, namely his "yes" vote for the Patriot Act. And if you're a Democrat who is against the war, you're seriously mistaken if you think Obama or Hitlery have any plan of ending the war (anti-war protestors that are informed and know the score on this guy just heckled and interupted him during a speech in Chicago). Uninformed voters believe this because they buy this little media slight-of-hand, where they create the perception that the Democrats are anti-war. Forget what they say, look at what they do and research before you cast your votes.

Some of the things you hear come out of people's mouths just blows my mind. I was listening to a talk radio program and an Obama supporter called in and listed his reasons for supporting him. "He's a good everyday kind of guy, real personable... the kind of guy you could hang out with and watch football with." Yeah, God forbid we vote on anyone based on how they uphold the Constitution.

Here's another stupid statement: I like Ron Paul and his policies, but I think it's too radical for a lot of people, so I'm going to vote for candidate x." "I'd vote for him if I thought he had a chance of winning." What does it matter what someone else thinks?! Isn't the idea to vote for who YOU agree with? This is our national government not a football game for God's sake. If you were in prison and had a choice to vote between life in prison, lethal injection or escape, would you vote for lethal injection because you though everybody else was and you'd be voting for the winner? Come on!

clayrains · Post by **clayrains** » Sun Feb 11, 2007 7:24 pm

klankymen wrote:pity about giuliani, he's probably the only republican I would vote, and would be happy with in office.... I wonder if he could do something again with his crimestopping reputation (although I believe thats not entirely founded in truth either though)

Crimestopping reputation?! Maybe I guess if you don't count his involement in 9/11!!!

clayrains · Post by **clayrains** » Sun Feb 11, 2007 7:31 pm

Kaleid wrote:Gotta give kudos to Ron Paul for warning about another 'gulf of Tonkin' indicent so that war against Iran can be waged:

On Thursday, January 11, 2007, Congressman Ron Paul of Texas (R) (but he's really a Libertarian) hit the house floor and put on the record what many Americans fear might be coming down the pipe; a new Gulf of Tonkin incident to initiate a shooting war with Iran.

"The truth is that Iran, like Iraq, is a third-world nation without a significant military. Nothing in history hints that she is likely to invade a neighboring country, let alone America or Israel. I am concerned, however, that a contrived Gulf of Tonkin- type incident may occur to gain popular support for an attack on Iran."

http://www.911blogger.com/node/5575

And asking for a new, real 9/11 investigation:

"CALLER: I want a complete, impartial, and totally independent investigation of the events of September 11, 2001 . I'm tired of this bogus garbage about terrorism. Ask Michael Meacher about how he feels about this bogus war on terrorism. Can you comment on that please?

HON. DR. RON PAUL: Well, that would be nice to have. Unfortunately, we don't have that in place. It will be a little bit better now with the Democrats now in charge of oversight. But you know, for top level policy there's not a whole lot of difference between the two policies so a real investigation isn't going to happen. But I think we have to keep pushing for it. And like you and others, we see the investigations that have been done so far as more or less cover-up and no real explanation of what went on.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/5648

So, count him out already. There's no way in hell he has any chance to win.

Ron Paul is the only one that knows what's really going on, how 9/11 was a huge coverup and potential inside job, how Iraq was planned in advance and a fraud from the start. Unlike Democrats, he'll actually move to get us out of Iraq. He even says Bush should be impeached. What does Democrat Nancy Pelosi say? No, she publicly stated that she has no plan to bring charges against Bush. Wake up Democrats.

Devonavar · Post by **Devonavar** » Sun Feb 11, 2007 9:12 pm

Did you register for our forums just to talk politics and promote Ron Paul?

I'm impressed... and somewhat scared.

Anyhow, if you're interested in making your computer quieter, please stick around.

klankymen · Post by **klankymen** » Mon Feb 12, 2007 2:16 am

Here's something interesting I heard:

Is Barrack Obama really black?
You may be wondering - what the hell is this guy talking about?
But apparently there are people who say Obama isn't really 'black' because he doesn't descend from slaves.
I just think if he's black enough for a member of the KKK to want to kill him, he's black enough for me.
Edit: just realized that sounds kinda racist, what I'm getting at is if he is victim to the same discrimination as anyone else, what does it matter what his great-great-grandfather did?

Beyonder · Post by **Beyonder** » Mon Feb 12, 2007 9:15 am

clayrains wrote: Instead, all we hear about is Barack Obama. Is the media now talking about him endlessly because people are really interested in him, or because they want us to be interested in him?

I'll go with option C myself: it's because he is a very qualified, competent and personable individual who iwould absolutely make a good president.

If you think Barack Obama would make a good president--think again. Check his atrocious voting record, namely his "yes" vote for the Patriot Act.

Wrong: his "yes" vote was for the extension of the patriot act. Obama wasn't even in the senate when it was originally passed.

Furthermore, if you read his statement above, it's quite clear that he isn't particularly enthused about the Patriot act, and numerous compromises had to be made before he agreed to it. Also notice that voting in the senate was 89-10, so the vast majority of the senate voted for the reauthorization of the Patriot act under compromised terms.

And if you're a Democrat who is against the war, you're seriously mistaken if you think Obama or Hitlery have any plan of ending the war (anti-war protestors that are informed and know the score on this guy just heckled and interupted him during a speech in Chicago).

Wrong: Obama has already drafted legislation to withdraw from Iraq.

Yeah, God forbid we vote on anyone based on how they uphold the Constitution.

At least you're consistently wrong.

Wikipedia wrote: Obama entered Harvard Law School in 1988. In February 1990, he gained national recognition for becoming the first African American to be elected president of the Harvard Law Review.[19] He obtained his J.D. degree magna cum laude from Harvard in 1991.[18] On returning to Chicago, Obama directed a voter registration drive, then worked for the civil rights law firm Miner, Barnhill & Galland, and taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1993 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004.

...Obama is very capable concerning matters of constitutional law. If anything, I'd trust his opinion far beyond yours on matters of the constitution. The guy taught constitutional law at Chicago Law School for over a decade.

Trip · Post by **Trip** » Mon Feb 12, 2007 9:31 am

The argument over the Constitution is whether it is living or whether it is a set of rules. Obama and most Americans take the stance that it is living and can be reinterpreted by the Supreme Court.

Just an explanation of what the issue is to any located outside the US.

I agree that he would know the Constitution very well (it's a fairly short and simple document), and seems to be unusually intelligent. That doesn't mean I like his stances, but I think it is clear that he's well informed and capable.

Beyonder · Post by **Beyonder** » Mon Feb 12, 2007 2:57 pm

Trip wrote: I agree that he would know the Constitution very well (it's a fairly short and simple document), and seems to be unusually intelligent. That doesn't mean I like his stances, but I think it is clear that he's well informed and capable.

That's fair enough. Nobody has to like Barack Obama's positions on any number of subjects.

Personally, I like Obama more than any other mainstream politician I've seen in a long time. In the last two elections, I've voted for third party candidates, mainly because I could never reconcile the inconsistency many Republican and Democratic candidates had between their voting record and reality (e.g. Hillary and Kerry's position on Iraq, McCain's position on Ethanol, etc). What I like about Obama is that he doesn't seem afraid to make an honest, genuine apology and admit he made a mistake.

It's a skill that I can truly respect. It's also one that I'm pretty bad at, so maybe I view him as a bit of a role model.

On the other hand, Hillary often seems pathologically incapable of admitting she made a mistake in authorizing the war in Iraq. I consider her vote to be presidential posturing (not wanting to appear "soft" on terrorism) rather than a vote in the best interests of the nation.

klankymen · Post by **klankymen** » Mon Feb 12, 2007 4:00 pm

While we're mentioning personal reasons.... one reason for me not to vote Obama is: He's a smoker.

Beyonder · Post by **Beyonder** » Tue Feb 13, 2007 10:43 am

klankymen wrote:While we're mentioning personal reasons.... one reason for me not to vote Obama is: He's a smoker.

I don't like smoking, but I don't think it would be a reason I wouldn't vote for someone. FWIW, I like that Obama is honest about his flaws. (e.g. yes, he smoked pot and inhaled. that was the point)

Anyways, I'll be the first to admit that I'm biased: I like Obama, and I'd like to see him in the White House in 2008.

Tancredo and Ron Paul

Tancredo and Ron Paul

Ron Paul. Kudos and simply forget it

Barak Obama

Ron Paul Is The Only One For President

Re: Ron Paul. Kudos and simply forget it

Re: Ron Paul Is The Only One For President