This fellow has been my number one choice for who I would trust to run our once greater country for us. I have been an admirer of him since he ran for President as a Republican in 2000. He is the greatest debater that I have seen. A brilliant scholar. He was awarded an earned Ph.D. in government affairs from Harvard in 1979, after writing his dissertation on the theory of American constitutional government. He was an assistant Secretary of State during the Regan administration. Mr. Keys was appointed by Ronald Reagan as Ambassador to the United Nations Economic and Social Council as well.

He is Alan Keys! (http://www.americasrevival.com/video?clip=0000990909cspan)

I literally get choked up when I think of what our country has in store for us ahead, compared to what we could have in store for us if Alan Keys was our President Elect.

but alas jeff...
it was not to be.
i'd take him in a hot second too.
ck

I think Hilary Clinton would be a great choice....






































stirs the pot a little....

stirs the pot a little....

Jump in the waters warm right?

Jump in the waters warm right?


Feed the fish, I just poured in fresh blood! :)

Ron Paul, this man was my #1 choice. Has some amazing views and thoughts.

Mr. Keys was appointed by Ronald Reagan as Ambassador to the United Nations Economic and Social Council as well..

If Reagan trusted in him then that's good enough for me..:yessir:

If Reagan trusted in him then that's good enough for me..:yessir:

Amen to that...:yessir:

Alan Keyes would have been a good choice. Ron Paul would have been my first pick as well, though. Even though I'm not one of the fanatical Ron Paul supporters, the man has always voted in line with his ideals and has never compromised his beliefs. In my opinion, he won the Republican debate, and has some great ideas to get this country back on the right track. I don't agree with him on every issue, I agree with him on more than any other candidate. The only place I take issue with his stance is the pullout of troops from Iraq without a victory. Granted, he's never said that per se, but his position has always been to safely withdraw our troops to focus on border security and hunting down the 9/11 terrorists. I support those goals, but I believe that we can't leave Iraq without leaving a stable democracy in our wake. We've gone in there, and whatever your position on whether or not we should have gona in the first place, we're there and we can't just leave a country with no defense to being taken over by some rouge regime.

Other than that, Ron Paul's got my support.

The thing I liked the least about Ron Paul is, he had that look about him like he is nuts. I'm sure he's not, but that's the impression that I always got whenever I have seen him, and listened to him speak. Not so much what he said, but just how he said it. I didn't agree with anything he said about Iraq either, which probably contributed to my impressions of him.

Did anyone else get the impression that he is nuts?

The thing I liked the least about Ron Paul is, he had that look about him like he is nuts. I'm sure he's not, but that's the impression that I always got whenever I have seen him, and listened to him speak. Not so much what he said, but just how he said it. I didn't agree with anything he said about Iraq either, which probably contributed to my impressions of him.

Did anyone else get the impression that he is nuts?

Who cares if he's nuts? Atleast he aint a muslim running " one nation under GOD" AMERICA...

The thing I liked the least about Ron Paul is, he had that look about him like he is nuts. I'm sure he's not, but that's the impression that I always got whenever I have seen him, and listened to him speak. Not so much what he said, but just how he said it. I didn't agree with anything he said about Iraq either, which probably contributed to my impressions of him.

Did anyone else get the impression that he is nuts?

He does come off that way sometimes. His image really isn't helped at all by his lunatic fanatical supporters. Alot of them take it as far as a religion, it would seem.

I know where he is coming from on his stance on Iraq. I feel, though, that the situation there demands a compromise and a full scale pullout is dangerous at best. Considering the fact that we have created the mess over there, and that there is no longer a stable government that is able to defend itself from take over from some power hungry neighbor, it would be unconscieable to leave them defenseless. No matter what your feelings about Saddam and his government, he atleast kept things in check and wouldn't have allowed the country to be taken over by Iran or Al Qaeda.

Other than that 1 issue, I can't think of any stance that he has taken that I don't agree with. But, you're right, he does seem like he has a few screws loose sometimes... No more so than any other congressman I can think of, though. Especially John Murtha.. I don't understand why people keep putting that man back in office.

I think Hilary Clinton would be a great choice....




stirs the pot a little....

Bill for First Lady!:yessir:

Alan or Ron Paul over what we have any day.

I really didn't know to much about Dr. Paul until the debates and started researching his positions and past voting record. I don't agree on everyone of his positions but I respect his stances more so than other politicians. The reason being is his voting record is a mirror image of his principles. A principled politician is hard to find. One that holds up the constitution and the principles of the Republic and the protection afford the people from its government over those that have been falsely taught that we live in a democratic society ruled my majority vote.

I voted for McCain simply because a write-in vote doesn't count and I thought Obama was the worst choice. I'm really sick and tired of voting against someone instead of for someone. Neither the Republicans or Dems keep to their promises after elected.

I posted this on another forum and it really goes to who the two parties serve.


Your squeezed from the right then from the left. The left then the right. In the end you lose freedoms from both.
When is the last time you have heard a major politician really and clearly stand up for anything that might be considered controversial?

2008, but he was knocked out of the debates. Death to the IRS, Death to the Federal Reserve. No bailout for the banks.
The Democrats and the Republicans are feeding from the same sources. Their polices tilt in favorite to their sides but at the end their polices always protects who feeds them.

Cycle Fundraising, John McCain
2003 - 2008
Raised: $4,389,028
Spent: $3,907,184
Cash on Hand: $13,931
Debts: $0
Last Report: Tuesday, September 30, 2008

Top 5 Contributors, 2003-2008
Merrill Lynch $358,320
Citigroup Inc $298,101
Morgan Stanley $250,377
Goldman Sachs $245,995
JPMorgan Chase & Co $215,092




Cycle Fundraising, Barack Obama
2003 - 2008
Raised: $16,370,215
Spent: $16,445,032
Cash on Hand: $120,539
Debts: $8,033
Last Report: Tuesday, September 30, 2008

Top 5 Contributors, 2003-2008
Goldman Sachs $799,821
University of California $784,593
Harvard University $543,639
JPMorgan Chase & Co $529,012
Citigroup Inc $523,948


The middle runs to the right to protect themselves from socialists. Then the middle runs to the left when polices become to fascist. We lose liberties from both sides while the interests of those with real power prevail.

I have been more of a conservative voter for the last ten years. I'm tired of voting for a candidate because I'm against the one that they are running against. All the anti-war voters are going to realize that voting for Obama isn't going to end the war or wars. The majority will shut-up though just like they did when Clinton was in office because actions will take place more under UN resolutions and home polices will lean more left.

The only candidate that is pro nationalism and would have actually protected the borders. The Republican Party isn't interested in protecting the borders any longer under the guise of free trade. The Democratic Party under the same and would also include social reasoning. Their both for big government as long as it is their big government.

Who contributed most to the anti-war candidate? It might surprise you.
Cycle Fundraising, Ron Paul
2007 - 2008
Raised: $5,005,154
Spent: $2,395,419
Cash on Hand: $2,830,958
Debts: $0
Last Report: Wednesday, October 15, 2008

Top 5 Contributors, 2007-2008
US Army $78,755
US Navy $60,369
US Air Force $59,155
Google Inc $58,401
Microsoft Corp $50,073

The reason being is his voting record is a mirror image of his principles.

This is the exact reason I support him over any other candidate. I may not agree with him 100% of the time, but I agree with him on most of the issues, and atleast he is a man of principle and you won't ever have to worry what agenda he has or who he is really working for.