To be honest with you i dont think the cause the same as you.. I think its because Ron Paul has such far out ideas on some issues, some would even call them 'crack pot' ideas. So people dont want to be part of those ideas.
Ron Paul seems like a good guy, but he has also survived in Texas this long so we can bet he has been payed for by big oil, like his friends. So he is tricky.
Atleast he points the finger at Bush when needed, thats a damn sight more neutral then some of his supporters.
Now that i think of it, maybe Ron Paul's support base what keeps him down.. You have people republican trolling and saying Vote Ron Paul! Yah, i can see how that would hurt him.
When you say you don't think .. you got that part right.
Obama from the streets of Chicago .. there is not a more crooked political back room dealing hack town than that in this country.
Take some advice from the dean ....
Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son
So Ron Paul is not popular because Obama in Chichago... Great debate point you got. Almost as good as the giant liberal media conspirecy against the repubs, unless Ron Paul is involved then its both of them in a giant conspirecy against him. Nice world you live in. Now i get why Ron can do no evil in you're eyes. He might be a lesser of them but if you look into it there is no way he would survive this long without a bit..
Oh, and i guess if we are going to use movie quotes here is one for
you!
Well you were the chump who mentioned why Ron Paul survived so long in Texas because he was paid off by big oil ... and I pointed out what city Obama got his political connections from is that so hard to understand.
Never argue with a fool; onlookers may not be able to tell the difference 
I think what i said was for Ron Paul to survive so long and from the state he represents he has had to have been bought by big oil.. Also considering who he was close to when he made his name.. Though i have never claimed Obama without sin or promoted him like you do Ron Paul..
I just point out some things that the guys who tend to spam the most posts here ever day ignore. Why you think that is oppressive to you and the view you hold is way beyond me if you look at the numbers.
Then again, you have admited to being a propaganda artist yourself by saying that you chose only bad news to post on Obama to enhance or add validation to the view you hold and discredit others.
By the way T, Ron Paul agrees with me on why he does not get media attention and all.. Guess his trouble is he doesnt think either?
Texas Congressman Ron Paul complained about a lack of media coverage, accusing the press of being "frightened by me challenging the status quo and the establishment."
I watch the talking head news shows, including the ones on Sunday morning and it seems to me that Ron Paul is a regular guest. When I have bothered to watch him on TV, he sounds like an economist which is another way to say that he isn't a dynamic speaker. He comes across, on TV anyway, as boring. He isn't good looking like Romney, isn't the speechmaker that Obama is, isn't cute like Palin & Bachmann, and doesn't sound like Dubya, like Perry does, so maybe he is his own media poison. Maybe he isn't on more because he isn't good on TV.
Here .. let's spiff up kooky Ron Paul for you libs and neocons who think that The Daily show is the place to get your news from Theres a new top tier.
Maybe he doesn't make good sound bytes for some people, because that's what's important to sheeple, a pretty voice and good looking hair .. not jobs, not the economy, not unsustainable wars, losing individual freedom, but a good sound byte .... Paul would make an excellent president - better than what we have or have had in decades ... but America wants a pretty boy or a tough boy - no woman please. The corporations and the mega rich need to sell a product .. fogetta about it being the real deal .. Obama, Rommney or Perry - they are a product they can sell you - Ron Paul - well he is apparently a product they can't control and distribute.
If your main focus in electing a president is that they sound good on TV .. vote like you always do .... watch those talking heads on TV - they will tell you what to do. How's that change doing for you?
Yah, we would just be defaulted and in global depression, and Iran would have nukes!
Just a couple of crazy ideas Ron Paul has had.. And T, i'm not saying his ideas wrong.. Even the crazy ones lol. I am only saying they are too far from main stream and it makes some shy off from him. Kinda funny, Paul would prob gain more support if he ran on a left ticket.
Sorry, but you have to go back and watch the first Back To The Future movie to see the part where Doc Brown realizes that in 1985 the president has to be an actor because he has to look good on TV.
I am not saying this is a virtue, I am just saying that this is the way it is, and it is worse now than it was in '85.
Ron Paul has a reputation as a fringe candidate with far out ideas but he never comes across that way on TV, at least to me. He comes across as old and boring.
Considering that you've never voted for someone besides a democrat for president ... phppt the dems love guys like you.
It's safe to say that you'll never vote for someone besides a dem for president .. if you voted for Mondale and Dukkais .. well let's just say you do not have very much objectivity or clarity when it comes to politics and you have the gall to say that Ron Paul is a fringe candidate and is boring 
I said he has a reputation as a fringe candidate, which is certainly true.
I guess you didn't get my point, once again, which is that considering his radical, fire-brand image, he is surprisingly dull on TV.
As dull as Walter Mon-DULL or Dukkais ever were.
So I don't know what you are laughing about.
I'm laughing because I didn't vote for Mondale or Dukkakis .. but you did .. the only reason you voted for them is because they were democrats .. please spare the obligatory that you voted for them because you thought they were the best candidates and they represented your beliefs.
The press has decided that the top tier candidates are Romney and Perry and Bachmann .. now you just believe that .. because the people who run things in this country want you to believe it and that is who they want you to vote for. Any objective person who watches a couple of different news sources could figure that one out.
I don't think that Ron Paul has a good chance of winning - mostly because of the system .. the system that is not democratic at all due to the nature of the beast that it has become. I think that the polls have Obama and Ron Paul in pretty much a dead heat at this time.
We are gonna have to agree to disagree here, Big T, you don't seem to get what I am saying, and you have your own theories about Ron Paul.
I think it is simpler, I just think he isn't a good candidate, not a good campaigner.
And I think I know a bad campaigner when I see one, having voted for a few of them, the two you mentioned above and Al Gore for good measure. These four guys, including Paul, come across as boring on TV.
The funny thing is, from the list of people you voted for almost all where republican or repubs runing as 3rd party... Again i fail to see how that makes you better then anyone else here, even though it seems to in you're mind.
As for reagan, people still make fun of reaganomics for a reason. The guy didnt even have all of his mind through the majority of his term. I really dont get why he is supported so much. You being from cali should remember when he shut down the mental wards and you all had that huge influx of crime. I guess you dont mention that because he is a republican and you want to keep you're unbiased score up?
We dig Paul and are financing his campaign, as we finance many other western political campaigns. He sucks votes away from Republican candidates.
Big_T
The 1'ers want Romney, Perry and Obama to be your choices for the next election .. ever wonder why?