E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSRon Paul wants to legalize pot and shut down the Federal Reserve. He thinks the federal government has no authority to outlaw abortion, no business bombing Iran to keep it from acquiring a nuclear weapon, and no justification to print money unless it's backed up by gold bars.
And he might win the Iowa caucuses.
The closer the first votes of the 2012 presidential campaign get, the more competitive the Texas congressman has become. It's a moment his famously fervent supporters have longed for. Plenty of others are asking: What's Ron Paul about, again?
As in his two prior quixotic campaigns for president, Paul has toiled for months as a fringe candidate best known for staking out libertarian positions. As every other Republican candidate lined up to attack President Barack Obama's health care law and to promise tax cuts, Paul again demanded audits of the Federal Reserve and a return to the gold standard.
Leading in some state polls, Paul is getting a look from mainstream voters in Iowa, where the 76-year-old obstetrician has emerged as a serious contender in the Jan. 3 caucuses — and in other early voting states, should he pull off a victory.
The sudden rush of attention to Paul's resume hasn't been kind. He's spent the past week disowning racist and homophobic screeds in newsletters he published decades ago, including one following the 1992 riots in Los Angeles that read, "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to collect their welfare checks three days after rioting began."
"Everybody knows I didn't write them and they're not my sentiments, so it's sort of politics as usual," Paul said during a recent Iowa campaign stop.
Looking to cut into Paul's support, rivals laid into him on Tuesday.
In an interview on CNN, Newt Gingrich said Paul holds "views totally outside the mainstream of virtually every decent American." And Rick Santorum chided, "The things most Iowans like about Ron Paul are the things he's least likely to accomplish and the things most Iowans are worried about about Ron Paul are the things he can accomplish."
Paul returns to Iowa on Wednesday, giving his impressive grass-roots organization in the state a last chance to present, and perhaps defend, positions he's staked out over a long political career and reiterated during the 13 Republican debates held this year.
Paul has served a dozen terms in Congress as a Republican, but he espouses views that have made him the face of libertarianism in the U.S. He blames both Republicans and Democrats for running up the federal debt and opposes any U.S. military involvement overseas. He wants to bring home all troops from all U.S. bases abroad.
He vows to do away with five Cabinet-level departments — Commerce, Education, Energy, Housing and Urban Development, and Interior — and repeal the amendment to the Constitution that created the federal income tax. He opposes federal flood insurance and farm subsidies and wants to remove marijuana from the federal list of controlled substances while allowing states to decide how to regulate it.
He says he'll cut $1 trillion out of the first budget he offers as president. He doesn't believe in a border fence but says illegal immigrants shouldn't get a free education in public schools.
He's reliably described by political pundits as non-establishment, quirky, unorthodox. During a Republican debate in Sioux City, Iowa, earlier this month, Paul defended his views and rejected the idea that they make him unelectable.
"The important thing is, the philosophy I'm talking about is the Constitution and freedom, and that brings people together," Paul said. "It brings independents in the fold and it brings Democrats over on some of these issues."
Paul doesn't always side with the most extreme conservative proposals. When it comes to Gingrich's suggestion that judges could be hauled before Congress to explain their rulings, Paul joined other Republicans in dismissing the idea.
Paul's recent surge in Iowa isn't the first time the GOP establishment has been forced to pay attention to him. A fundraising blitz that netted $5 million in one day in 2008 led Republican operatives to weigh whether he was a bigger threat to siphon votes than previously thought.
Now he may be in his best position yet to do more than just steal votes.
"I see this philosophy as being very electable, because it's an American philosophy, it's the rule of law," Paul said.
Leave a Comment:
Ron Paul’s common sense is refreshing. Curiously enough, a free country doesn’t tolerate it.
Isnt that the truth.. though I would never vote for a republickan, I wouldn't feel so bad if he were to win a term or two as president. atleast we know who he is and where he wants to be.. everyone else just seems to be changing there stance to conform to whoever will help them win..
Ron Paul 2012, If it has to be..
While I'm intrigued with doing away with taxes, how would the government collect revenue without them in some form?
I find some of his positions quirky at best.
I'm not sure America is ready for a Libertarian.
Well, the only reason we have the income tax is because our government is HUGE, imperialist.
let paul explain. youtu . be /a3Bfz4qf_rA
Time to break the mainstream Washington mold. Ron Paul is just the man to do it. Some of his more bizarre beliefs can be mitigated by Congress while some of the common sense ideas about reducing the national debt and restoring many of the freedoms we have lost to big government would hopefully pass. It is time to empower citizens with some self-reliance and capacity to make decisions that have been siphoned off by big government.
@ Eric,..Ron Paul suppports consumption taxes but after ending unnecessary wars and shutting down some of the worthless federal bureacracy we will be able to function fine without the income tax.
Ron Paul has my vote for president no matter what. I'll write him in if I have to. A vote for Romney will be the same as a vote for Obama.
The problem is that a libertarian President is almost an oxymoron. And no matter what form of "libertarianism" we might have, there will always be someone in charge. In the US, it would be the corporations. Which would be even worse (if possible) than the Repubbies.
Ron Paul is irrelevent. If the old man even wins one caucus in this his THIRD Presidential run, it would be his best showing yet. He's never passed a piece of legislation in his time in Congress because even his own colleagues think he's a loon. People printing their own money? Legalized prostitution and heroin? Isolationism? It just isn't going to happen.
Eglide - you'd be correct except that corporations don't see themselves in control. They may have a niche for a particular product and influence in that area, but as a real controller, they don't even come close to competing with big government.
Before you get carried away, please name one, just one, piece of legislature that Ron Paul has sucessfully promoted to become a law in his 20 plus years in congress.
If he couldn't do that in congress, even during the time when his republican friends ruled, what makes anyone think that he'll be able to make even a single change that he talks about in his campaign speeches and debates, if he were president for just four years?
I don't think anything could be worse for America than four more years of the big-government welfare-king dictator. Mitt Romney would be better and can defeat Obama. But I'm ready to break the Washington mold of bought & paid for cronyism. Ron Paul is intelligent and courageous enough, with the combined assistance of staff, to do a better job fixing this country than a standard bought and paid for politician. In Virginia our choices on the ballot are Obama (never), Romney (maybe), and Ron Paul (possibly a yes-check box).
DB-
Wrong-!!- corporations control big government -- or small government--by the use of influence-peddling lobbyists and control the press by buying up media outlets. If Paul got in the corps wouldn't need to spend money on lobbyists- because they would have no fear of infringement by the federal government. They could concentrate then on using lobbyists to change state law to maximize profits. Big government is not the problem, special interests influence on big government is.
Is this Paul guy for real?? Let Iran have the bomb?? That's just suicidal lunacy. Some of what he stands for is OK, but his take on somethings is so far off the wall that he'd ruin this country.
Eric - America was founded by libertarians, and if our current government even tried to follow the Constitution then we would still be a libertarian nation. Unfortunately, we have instead followed a path towards big government, led by the very politicians that benefit from such a scheme, and have all but turned our backs on the Constitution and the founding fathers. Christ, the President can declare his own wars now without approval of Congress, in direct violation of the Constitution, with the justice department's excuse being that the Constitution is a "living document" subject to changing interpretations. We have basically turned into the same type of government that we once revolted against, and I for one think it is time for us to return to the values that this country was built on, before it is too late.
AP - People printing their own money? That is precisely what we have today, and what Ron Paul wants to put a stop to. The dollar bills in your wallet are essentially worthless - the Treasury can (and does) easily print a trillion more just like them, thus devaluing your hard-earned wealth so that the government can continue its spending binge.
While some of Paul's views on domestic issues are right on the money, his views on the rest of the world and our place in it are just downright dangerous. Isolationism never works out. Case in point - the years leading up to WWII. If the US had not been run by an isolationis government, would Hitler have gotten as far as he did? Would Japan have had the nerve to attack our fleet in Hawaii? Our very presence around the world has proven to be a deterent. I am not saying we should be the police of the world, however, if you are forever looking inward, it may be too late when trouble comes knocking at your door.
rightwingnut69, when you use the phrase "big-government welfare-king dictator" in referring to Obama, you show yourself to be a typical uninformed, Limbaugh, Faux News puppet, parroting their meaningless buzz-words. Please tell me specifically how Obama is a) big government (remembering that not a single president in your or my lifetime has failed to radically expand the government, including St. Ronnie of Reagan), b) a welfare-king (has he expanded welfare? Please list exactly in what ways he has done this) and c) a dictator (again, please list specific examples). Your failure to do these things shows us all that you are the typical uninformed, confused type of American that Limbaugh and Faux News preys on. I await your specific examples.
One of many,...
Obama utilizes John Keynes economic theories, espousing ideas that the central government is best equipped to control successful economic growth by establishing policy and providing money (ownership over) for the means of production. The policies are about regulatory controls of industry and collectivism secures the money supply to subsidize industry. The problem(s) with this speaks for itself. It's about government control. It starts gradually and gains traction. Example=General Motors bailout (government takeover).
Obamacare=government control over healthcare, phase one.(Individual Mandate) If your memory wasn't so bad ,one of many, you would recall how a majority Americans opposed Obamacare but it was shoved through by Congress anyway. This provided many Americans with the impetus to send a large mumber of Congressional incumbants packing in the Nov.2010 election. Some sources indicate that Obama took $500 out of Medicare to launch obamacare.This will stealtily phase in until one-sixth of the economy,namely healthcare, is government controlled. I think there is, thankfully, a good chance that it will be repealed.
The president panders to liberals of all colors and stripes for votes by demonizing the Republicans, who have numerous job and energy bills, designed to help Americans, stuck in the Senate. The left is against a voter ID card for the obvious reasons. No proof of residency, automatic Democrat vote.
The answer is simply to take more away from the rich to fuel the social programs and perpetuate the cycle of government dependence. If he promises people a safe sactuary with free food, medicine, education, and housing you sound like one of the misled masses that will blindly folow this spend-thrift charlatan. 3 years and $5 trillion dollars of additional debt later, his soultion is to impose a millionaire's tax so that he can continue to hemmohrage money. I know, what about Bush? That was a differenet administration.
You wanted an answer, there. I don't expect you to agree or even understand since you resort so quickly to childish insults, but ther's your answer.
right wing nut
name fits you well.
First 70% of ameericans want health care reform, sorry the republicans have been blocking it since clinton
out taxes are at 50 year low but the middle class keeps losing people to the poor and the rich get richer...... wait we revolted against that, and people(the kings men) being given special treatment and of course taxes with repestation
Of course we need to cut food and shelter to the poor, sorry I was haveing a Glen beck moment there. Please justifed the death of childern and elderly(which you seem to be against because you are against health care reform with it fake death panels)
The GM bailout has brought back jobs vs losing jobs but then again you live up to your name
Wolften,
your right 70% of Americans WANT Health Care Reform. Your Fallacy? 90% of Americans Do NOT want Obamacare. Just like they soundly rejected Hillarycare, they are rejecting Obama's version of health care.
Proof you ask, Just look at the Ohio vote, 70% voted to restore their collective voting rights, a huge democrat win, but, the SAME 70% of the voters rejected Obamacare by approving a state resolution to exclude themselves from it's provisions.
A solid Blue State, A solid labor win on rights, a solid loss for Obamacare.
You cant spin that! Even the solid union democrat faithful don't want it.
Actually AP, Ron Paul has passed legislation, here is a couple examples right here: He has written successful legislation to prevent eminent domain seizure of a church in New York, and a bill transferring ownership of the Lake Texana dam project from the federal government to Texas: As far as legalizing drugs and prostitution? He never said he wants to legalize them, he believes that individual states should have the right to decide for themselves if they should be legal. Believe it or not, that is how this country is supposed to work.
In other words, the constitution does not grant the Federal Government express authority to regulate prostitution or drugs of any form, thus that right is supposed to, constitutionally, fall to the individual states. Ron Paul simply believes in doing things the way our founders intended on them being done. I for one, believe this is the right course of action. This country was founded on individual rights and freedoms and as we have seen over the years the government doesn't have a problem stripping us of those rights. It's time we get someone in office who will give us our rights back.
It is great that Ron Paul is Republican, would curtail forward deployment, would defend American borders and the rule of law, would support decriminalization of marijuana, and would balance the budget. He would end bribes to corrupt dictators who hate us. He has said those over the age of 55 will not be affected on their Social Security checks.
Congress must approve the President's actions, and the President must approve the Congressional actions. Ron Paul would be a great check on the Congress.
scott,.. I agree with your remarks about Ron Paul. Good counterbalance for government. Restore powers to the states and back to the limited Constitutional federal government.
Wolften,....I fit my name. Correct. It is the source of many compliments. Too bad you cannot appreciate the merits of low taxes and limited government. Wolften,do you even pay federal taxes?
yes I do rightwing
and it was not a compliment it was an insult.
You are like palin, and bachman you can not even grasp the rule of law and the reason why we have regulations and why most americans are tireed of the "health care tax" put upon by inusrance compinies pocketing billions in profits and kick of woman if the develop cancer and they put down their period was regular when it was not.
To support ron paul by his own newletter(which by the way he was the lead editor on) is to support racism, child labor, unsafe workspace(regulation will happen as captilsim dictates we tried that and got the meat packing industry in the jungle and company owned towns) Of course consertives also hate the fact that bush is also to be blamed for the budget issue
limited goverment by ron Paul
no regulations
no foward deployed troops see WW2 why this has been an american military project, for right wing our foward deployed troops keeps an attack on american soil by forgein troops away. The states lost power when the refused to act to solve issues such as racsim slavery, to name a few major issues(we fought a war over it it was called the civil war were the federal goverment stepped in and made sure the union would stay whole even as some southern states want to ignore the declarion (all men are created equal) )
removal of several admenment even thought they were passed by the congress following constitional law
child labor(capitilsm after all)
trade barriors(cause the lost decade in japan)
Rightwing please go back to listeing to the god father of the tead party and his son glen beck and leave us hard working 80 hours hourly wage slaves alone and go back to your cush office and figure out how to increase profits without firing people
one last note to get rid of all those departments would also cause the unemployment numbers to triple......... I can see small goverment at the cost of the nation.....
also he has never refused his paycheck donated it to state groups, never given up any congressman benifits, is elegible for SS not sure if he is collecting though some in congress do.
the texas bill was done, he was a cowrote it and did so at the beheast of the state of texas gov at the time, since he had helped cut federal goverment maintance money for it the year before the church bill happen because of his church ties not so constitional again.....
how about his comments about repleaing over half the admendments, which would lead to only landowners being allowed to vote as per the constition(by the way his pay as per the constion would be only for the days in washingtong and that would be limited to the amount of his hotel and food, he collects much more)
Right, let's elect a whacko to run the country.
Wolften
Links please?
Please show us where you are getting this from.
http://freedombunker.com/index.php/2011/11/18/ron-paul-supports-repealing-the-16th-and-17th-amendments/
http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/lu4k4/scumbag_ron_paul_wants_to_repeal_the_14th/
In 2006, Paul joined 32 other members of Congress in opposing the renewal of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, originally passed to remove barriers to voting participation for minorities.[264] Paul has indicated that he did not object to the voting rights clauses, but rather to restrictions placed on property rights by the bill.[265] He felt the federal interference mandated by the bill was costly and unjustified because the situation for minorities voting is much different than when the bill was passed 40 years ago. Many of Texas' Republican representatives voted against the bill, because they believe it specifically singles out some Southern states, including Texas, for federal Justice Department oversight that makes it difficult for localities to change the location of a polling place or other small acts without first receiving permission from the federal government.[266] The bill also mandated bilingual voting ballots upon request, and in a letter opposing the bill for this reason, 80 members of Congress including Paul objected to the costly implications of requiring bilingual ballots.[266] In one example cited in the letter, the members detailed how Los Angeles spent $2.1 million for the 2004 election to provide ballots in seven different languages and more than 2,000 translators, although one of the requirements of gaining United States citizenship is ability to read in English, and another California district spent $30,000 on translating ballots per election despite receiving only one request for Spanish documents in 16 years. The legislators also noted that printing in foreign languages increases the chances of ballot error, pointing out a specific example of erroneous translated ballots that had been used in Flushing, New York.[267]
[edit] Civil Rights Act of 1964
Paul wrote of his opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964:
so again do some research the man wants to remove all protection and says the constition dows not give us a right to privacy Find it funny he claims vet support him but at the same time he is for cutting the military, destroying over 50 years of work to make the service people have done for the country worthless.....
I just list the top 2 he wants gone, he also wants to remove several others
I have a question for Ron Paul supporters. For months now you have used a Libertarian/Paul fallback position on many issues called "personal responsibility". I believe that it is a huge part of the Libertarian philosophy.
So, on to the question. When shown what was published in his newletters, vile and quite rascist comments, Ron Paul has said that he didn't write those, never read them, was not aware of them until 10 years later, and didn't even know who wrote and included them in newsletters that bear his name, and were sent to his followers.
The question is not: Is Ron Paul a rascist? On that, I am happy to take him at his word, I'm sure he personally is not. The real question is: When will Ron Paul take personal responsibility for disgusting comments that were published in his name? When will he live up to that mantra of libertarianism? You all say he has principles. Isn't it time for him to show them?
Paul gives a simple message and people like that. The problem with it is this. If it sounds too good to be true it usually is and nothing, nothing is ever that simple. The world is not that simple anymore, and we are all globally intertwined. Im not sure why people dont get that concept. Ron Paul will simply not make the nomination, the Republican party will make sure of it and if he runs third party, Obama will be re elected. So, hey! Win Win I say!
You know, we already HAVE experimented with the libertarian version of the US, under the Articles of Confederation.
Any rightwingers are to explain why we dropped that in favor of the much more powerful and centralized system we have now?
Freedombunker and some loon comment link through reddit are your big reveal on Dr Paul?
Sorry Wolfie, that's just sad.
Dr Paul is a respected legislator, and a man of his word, something nearly extinct in DC.
That he is a constitutionalist does not make him a loon. That simpleton's cannot understand that it takes more than 1 sentence to discuss some of the intricacies of law and government does not surprise me, but it does explain how these folks thought Obama was a good decision.
He has some common sense, but his opposition to the First Amendment and the Civil Rights Act are unconscionable. Unless he renounces his views, he will never get my vote.
Yet curiously enough, when pollsters asked about each individual part of "Obamacare", a majority favored each individual part of it. So they really do favor all of it, just not the name "Obamacare". Apparently, their opposition is triggered by the scare factory that is Fox News, spreading lies and calumnies about the Health Care Initiative.
Wolften
you haven't shown me anything yet that supports your position, I know about those and I know his position on those and I support it. I would like you to show me where his positions are wrong?
You claim they are wrong, but so far have shown nothing proving they are wrong.
I can accept if you were writing from a IMHO perspective, but you are claiming your position on facts, show me the facts.
Obama has requested an additional 1.2 TRILLION dollars, this on top of the 1 trillion already allocated. We cannot afford Obama. I would vote for Paul over Obama. We cannot afford him. Now he's going to sell 11 billion worth of arms to Iraq. Do we see a problem with this? The Obama supporters will support him no matter what he does, the rest of us, those capable of rational thought, have some serious concerns with Obama. Ron Paul, unless he gets the nod, will divide the vote, thus guaranteeing Obama's re-election. I will take a Ron Paul over a Barrack Obama.
Ron Paul = SAVING AMERICA
This may be the only thing Santorum ever said that I can agree with.
Ron Paul has extreme ideas that might work if he started a new country, but to tear down the basic structure of the U.S. government in one fell swoop would be disastrous. The real problem we face is control of the government by special interests and corporations.
Americans need to stop looking at the federal government primarily as a tool to satisfy their own particular desires and promote a government that makes the nation stronger, more productive and more cohesive even if national policies do not always benefit them individually.
He is supposed to be a contsutuionlist
first he served in the air force a branch the constition does not support
second he supports the military(or so he says) again according to the constition the only branch we are supposed to have is the navy.
He takes a paycheck and gets benfits which is again contray to the constition
he supports the constition but when it is legal modified by the procees defined in the constition well he disgarees with that.
he does not support regulation that roaches and rat droppings out of meat or lead out of toys claiming to be a constitionlist but in fact that is a cpatilist approach which runs in the face of the constition
since the constition ignores business all together and offers them no protection
a vote for ron paul is a vote backward in time
I liked most about the article except the phrase "Now he may be in his best position yet to do more than just steal votes." Paul actually had more delegates at the GOP convention in 2008 than Mitt Romney. Paul's momentum was broken when Fox News refused to invite him to the New Hampshire debate and the South Carolina GOP also refused to invite him to their debate even though, in both instances, he was polling higher than some of the invited candidates.
Fox likes to control and slant the republickan politics.. the Repubs should just change their name to fox
At 76, how would he endure the Presidency. Iran is going to be a problem. His xenophobic policies won't keep Iran in check.
Iran is a sovereign nation. We have no right meddling in their business. If Israel doesn't like what Iran is doing they can take care of the problem. We've spent enough money and spilled enough blood in the Middle East. Time to focus on our half of the globe.
The age thing is a concern but right now he appears capable. As for the need for military intervention, a Congressional majority could override him if necessary.
You're going to ask CONGRESS to keep the world safe? LOL! No, there's a reason this old guy is seen as a nutcase. His loony ideas are not unknown just because YOU just discovered it'd be great not to pay any taxes.
AP,....I belong to the half of the population that pays taxes. That isn't the point. I plan to comply with the law and continue to pay taxes. The point that I am trying to make is that our government has grown too large and has become too big and expensive. Lots of waste.
Though conservative I maintain that as a country we over committ to overseas engagements and hold firmly the belief that we should have exited Iraq no later than 2005. War should only be used to remove a threat, not nation building or police action.
I am a limited government, low tax state-rights advocate.
Ap - You might want to look at "isolationism" vs. "non-interventionism" to see if there is a difference, and what that difference is. You are totally out of context...."You're going to ask CONGRESS to keep the world safe?" You asked. Who is asking Congress to keep the world safe? That is the problem with "INTERVENTIONISM" We intervene and people all over the globe die. Why is that? Because we are keeping the world safe?
rightwingnut69
Actually you are wrong, Congress cannot issue orders to the military, (separation of powers clause) and the military cannot accept orders from the Congress. Congress can whine and cry and demand all they want, pass whatever resolutions they want, but the president is the only one that can issue orders to the military. He is the Commander in Chief as specified in the Constitution. No other can substitute.
Americans often forget that our government is comprised of three branches, administrative, legislative and judicial. The built-in checks and balances of our system would make it impossible for Ron Paul or any other Libertarian to enact the changes he promotes.
Ron Paul's common sense is refreshing. The fact that a free country does not tolerate it says much about its political health.
What's not tolerated?? Even this complete fool with no common sense and absolutely no chance of winning a single state is considered a viable presidential candidate in his third time out. That says much about the sorry state of the Republican party.
Time to throw the down-to-earth common-sense wrench into the machinery of washington.
Though I don't support every one of his (RP's) ideas, the other choices would be more of the same...spend, spend, lie, spend, lie and spend some more.
Ron Paul is true, real, and honest.
America is afraid of the truth...
Ain't that the truth.
America is not afraid of the truth ... the truth is that Ron Paul is a far flung ideologue.
Ron Paul is a true supporter of the John Birch society and their KKK and neo-nazi membership.
Ron Paul does not support the JBS or the KKK, if they want to support his campaign that's their choice.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/26/us/politics/ron-paul-disowns-extremists-views-but-doesnt-disavow-the-support.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
Get your facts straight.
VietnamVet-4208295
Ron Paul's view is, "...they can support me if they want, that does not mean that I support them or their views."
Lets try out a link out there, try this one...
www.thegatewaypundit.com/2010/07/figures-black-panther-who-threatened-philly-voters-is-a-credentialed-dem-poll-watcher/
So I guess the Black Panthers support the Democrat Party, does that mean Obama supports the Black Panthers and "Killing Crakkkas" ???
Cuts both ways doesn't it?
Ron Paul is the only candidate that the GOP is Fieldingthat has a chance, all of the rest are just corrupt greed bags
"Ron Paul wants to legalize pot and shut down the Federal Reserve. He thinks the federal government has no authority to outlaw abortion, no business bombing Iran to keep it from acquiring a nuclear weapon, and no justification to print money unless it's backed up by gold bars."
You mean something sustainable? How dare him!
Right on! That's what I'm talking about. Ron Paul is the only man that can turn this ship around. I was a life long democrat until I saw "American Freedom to Fascism" he blew my mind.
A nuclear Iran is not a good thing folks.
Agree on Ron Paul. Paranoid on nuclear Iran is like Iraq experience repeating again. No more cost on our soldiers.
Eric, true in your statement. But I don't see Iran as a huge threat in the near term. America has enough military force to decimate Iran about 500 times if they become a threat.
Eric-913730
I'm no doctor, but I think you suffer from "ExtremeFoxNewsWatching-itis"
Ron Paul 2012!! Unless you want another president who will lie, spend and take more of your rights away.
A nuclear Iran could bring much needed stability to the Middle East. Since 1947, nuclear weapons have prevented war between states which possess them. Even apartheid Israel might think twice about its brutal activities if its unilateral threats of nuclear annihilation are nullified.
Why is it if our country pulls our millitary out of all these places we will be isolationist. Paul thinks we should do trade but not occupy with a millitary force. This is just foolish to think that we have to have a millitary force all over the world. Come on people don't be affraid of living free, be responsable for your own life and stop waiting for the Gov to take care of you. Your freedoms our being taken away by people who are playing by a different set of rules. We have given to much power to the law makers and lobbiest.
I suppose that he also wants to allow people to practice medicine without a license because the government doesn't have any authority over what anyone does unless it's in the Constitution.
now your getting it...
whats wrong with that, aren't you republicans always pushing the government out of the way? free market? who needs a license.. ooohhh, except when it works against you.. i see...
Why do you need a license from the Government? Why not private organizations? The BAR controls who practices law. Mechanics are ASE certified, that's not from the government? Private accredidations are prevalent in a million different private sectors and it works fine. Not like the government has ever approved chemicals and then later said OOPS, guess it's not safe. The same thing happens with medication approved by the FDA etc. Ultimately the responsibility of who you choose to provide you services falls upon the individual. If you choose a physician with bad credentials or an incompetant mechanic it's your fault.
I forgot to mention that tthe reason we have mal-practice insurance is in case you go to someone who is incompetant.
I'm not 100% positive about this, because I haven't read anything specifically on-point about this from RP or his people, but it seems that he wouldn't "want to allow people to practice medicine without a license because the government doesn't have any authority over what anyone does unless it's in the Constitution." Instead, as a doctor, he would probably understand that it is necessary for people to be required to have a license to practice medicine; however, the Constitution doesn't give the federal government the authority to require this. It is well within States' rights in the Constitution, and I think RP would just be confident that the States would make the sensible choice and keep the requirement in place. His Constitutionalism is more about exercising the federal government's enumerated powers while directing all other powers to the States, without questionable SCOTUS decisions giving the federal government expanded powers not specifically enumerated.
This idea that if he doesn't want the federal government to do something he must be against it all together is just a fundamental misunderstanding of RP and is a product of the media's weak portrayal of him. For instance, he's not against education, he's against federal control of education, etc.
BTW, I'm not a Ron Paul supporter. His stance on abortion is based on personal experience and religious foundations, and is completely antithetical to libertarianism (although, again, his stance on this is that the federal government doesn't have the authority to regulate this- a SCOTUS decision finding abortion to be a penumbraic right to privacy? No, RP says this is a choice for the States, rather than imposing his opinion on the whole country through the federal government). His foreign policy is naiive and would work at the time of the founding fathers (though we wouldn't be where we are if his policies were in place back then) but in the modern day his foreign policy is just ideological and not practical.
Like his son, who is board certified, by a board he created to certify HIM!
I was a libertarian for a short time until I actually considered the ramifications. With it, the top organizations in this county would be corporations. We need a strong government to offset them, to limit their power.
EGlide: BS. As consumers, we can limit the size and power of the corporations by choosing not to do business with them. With the government, you don't get that choice. You do what it tells you to do.
Your missing the point. Ron Paul is believes, correctly, that it should be handled by the state in which the Dr. would be practicing.
The 10th amendment states:"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Seems pretty clear to me that the Founders intent was to limit the Powers of the Federal Government to what was listed in Article 1 Section 8.
2OldDude-1489986
Show me where Ron Paul says that? Talk about being a sensationalist!
what_the_81
Excellent response!
This is how you respond to the lunatics making wild claims, simply ask them to provide their sources.
99% of what Ron Paul stands for is already public knowledge and posted on the internet, if what they are claiming is true, it will be posted somewhere.
Let them embarrass themselves.
Old Dude - no he just thinks it is ok to practice medicine without a legal license (or board certification) because his son does it.
Sounds like an issue for states rights, which he fully supports as it is not prescribed in The Constitution as a federal power.
BTW - This really exposes Fox News for what they are, Not Conservative! They want to defend dirt bags like Newt and discredit people like Dr. Paul because he won't spew their non-sense talking points.
FOX is a lying, unethical, corrupt, "Entertainment Network." In 2003, FOX was sued by one of their own people who refused to air FOX's interpretation of a "news" story that was a pure lie. FOX lost the first trial, but then appealed the case to a Florida Appellate Court. FOX attorneys argued that FOX had the right to lie to its audience because that right was protected by the First Amendment (Freedom of Speech). They further argued that FOX is NOT a "News Network," but instead, is an "Entertainment Network," and therefore, should NOT be held to the standards of other "News Networks." The Appellate Court agreed with FOX, and overturned the case. That's what FOX is. They're different from other "News Networks" because they are an "Entertainment Network" with the authority of the Court to lie to you. The bastards! FOX, the Ministry of Propaganda of the Republican Party, the political arm of wealthy, right wing, exgtremist, America is built on a lie.
FOX applied for a license to operate in Canada, but the Candians turned them down on the basis of the above definition of what they are.
Could you please site your sources? It's not even that I couldn't believe such a story but rather I would like to be able to better argue the point if the sources are there.
Personally I think Fox news is "the devil" if there is such a creature. Worse than the infamous nazi propagandists.
That is unbelievable! They should not be able to use the word news to describe their programming then because millions watch and believe their broadcasts are the gospel. So disgusting-- honestly I think you can trace the downturn and meanness in the GOP to Fox and talk radio hosts. They are corporate shills.
What is your defense of MSNBC or CNN? I'm guessing you think they do not spew propaganda.....
Chris-- Is that your defense? You can't defend Fox so you attack the other two media groups?? One thing — I seriously doubt that if they were sued their legal defense would be they are supposed to be watched for entertainment value only!
For those of you who wish to examine the FOX "News" case, please look at the following:
1. http://www.relfe.com/media_can_legally_lie.html
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Akre
3. Google FOX Lies
You have to be careful here because some of the "stories" are entitled, "The Media Can Legally Lie." When you actually get into the story you'll see that it is FOX vs Akre and Wilson, a case that began in 1997 and ended in 2003 - 2004 with the Flordia Appellate Court decision. Read the Court's decision.
Ron Paul's platform is what most GOP candidates have told their rank and file for years, and then, when they're elected, they turn their backs on everything they've said. I think Paul is an honest and sincere man, and I think he'll try to do exactly what he says if elected. On the other hand, he is a social Darwinist and I do not believe many of his supporters know what the consequences of that means. It means lassiez faire capitalism that existed in this country before the Republican, reform president--- President Theodore Roosevelt in 1904. If all they know is what they read by that drunken sot, Glenn Beck, then they need to read a reputable scholarly biography of TR. There are several on the market. They need to see themselves as working class men and women in the world of social Darwinism during the early part of the 20th century, not some idealized concept of "rugged individualism" that existed only in the minds of the very, very, wealthy. I'm not under any delusion here. I doubt that many of his supporters will read anything. Most seem to be voting against someone rather than seeing themselves existing in the world they created should Ron Paul win.
The domestic part of RP's platform fits what the GOP has been saying, but RP has no interest in protecting the state of Israel and wants an isolationist foreign policy. That is why he'll never get the nomination and why all of the key endorsements are going to Romney-- the "safe" candidate.
Personally, I would be scared of a Paul presidency since he would do nothing to help the environment, prevent hate crimes, make sure the states follow federal standards in education, voting rights, etc. It would be a government of benign neglect.
I wouldnt' compare him to TR because TR created anti-trust laws and the national park system and made the US a world power -- with his walk softly but carry a big stick foreign policy.
There were other 19th century do nothing presidents who were able to get away with the type of administration that Paul has in mind. I doubt that would work in today's world. RP has gone on record saying he wouldn't have interfered in WWII with the Holocaust and wouldn't have passed the Voting rights and civil rights legislation of the 60's.
I don't trust state governments enough to allow them the kind of power he would give them.
@Kritt,
This statement alone reveals a fundamental misunderstanding on your part about the nature of our government. The power is not the president's to give! And whether YOU trust the state governments or not is irrelevent. Do you trust the FEDERAL government more? Based upon what??
Whether RP is elected or electable or not, he wins because for the first time in a long time, a critical mass are questioning the basic assumptions under which our federal government has operated for decades. RP is a champion of the U.S. Constitution; the document that all holders of federal office swear an oath to support and defend. Paul is a hero for wanting to hold the federal government to the documents which give it authority. This is patriotism of the highest regard.
Ron Paul has no reason to want to protect the interests of apartheid Israel. That's why the media fears him. He is not the Zionist's sock puppet.
You couldn't be more wrong about his supporters.
kritt: If you're referring to my comment about Ron Paul and Theodore Roosevelt, I think you misunderstood what I said. Let me say it again. Ron Paul wants to take America back BEFORE Theodore Roosevelt's Progressive Administration. Paul wants government completely OUT of business regulation and TR brought government INTO the regulation of business. I honesty do not believe Paul's supporters have any idea what would happen in today's highly interdependent American Republic and world if we went back to social Darwinism. The entire economy would collapse within a few months. Let me give an analogy.
Suppose we eliminate government from regulating our highways. There would be no laws regarding highway driving, i.e., no police, no speed laws, nothing. Paul would argue that the drivers themselves would work out safe driving behaviors eventually---much like the markets will eventually work out ALL recessions and depressions if government stays out. Now, if you dare, get on an interstate highway or any two lane highway with no laws of any kind regulating driving behavior.
Similarly, think what would happen if you completely deregulate the markets. Anything goes, and eventually the markets will run all the "bad guys" out. The markets, if left alone, would eventually somehow would have caught Madoff and his ilk. How, I don't know they would be caught, but, the point is they would be left to operate entirely on their own since there would be no laws governing such behavior.
Equally important, unregulated business will lead to monopolies. What's to stop it? There would be NO government regulations to prevent it. Wal-mart, if left unregulated, for example, will own the retailing market and pay subsistence wages to workers. What's to stop them? There are no government regulations. That kind of behavior will exist all across the marketplace from hour-to-hour and day-to-day. What will stop it?" It's called lassiez faire capitalism (government stay out of business) and Ron Paul supports that economic theory. That's what life was like BEFORE President Theordore Roosevelt and the working classes suffered terribly. The 20th century, among other things, be seen as the struggle for workers rights. Why would anyone be opposed to that?
T Jefferson- OK I get you now!
Paul- Well RP is YOUR hero not mine. The Constitution must be open to interpretation or we wouldn't need SCOTUS to determine if legislation is constitutional right?? Now Paul has his own interpretation which he believes allows for a weak fed government and a strong state gov't.
In answer to your question-- I believe that our history has proven that the states need oversight by the Federal government -- it was proven in 1861-- though I understand that Lincoln is no hero of RP's-- would he have sat back and let the southern states secede?? It was proven in 1963 when civil rights workers were being murdered in Mississippi and in the 50's and 60's when Wallace and Faubus ignored a federal order to integrate the schools. Maybe RP doesn't care about the civil rights of minorities???
There is a process for updating the constitution for a changing society. It is the amendment process. The Constitution is not "open for interpretation". If you check article 1 section 8 of the document you get a pretty exhaustive list of what the federal government is to have authority over. Anything else is the purview of the states. Period.
You've got it backwards. The constitution is not about the government exercising power over the people, it is about the people exercising power over their government.
ROFL, I would vote for Obama over Ron Paul! He is a nut!
And Pres. Obama is bought and sold by Wall Street.
The Powers That Be want a Obama/Romney showdown. Why? Because they both support the current interests of big money.
Obviously it takes one to know one Linda.
takes one to know one "nomo" - and I'm sure you know them all!
Hope and change...and we're the nut?
Linda loves the status quo, apparently, 4 more years of the next George Bush for her, because the alternative is a nut.
Any choice but Ron Paul is just another Republicrat, going to keep our troops overseas, wasting trillions of our tax dollars sending it as "foreign aid", instead of keeping it here at home to actually try and fix our financial burdens. The plain and simple truth is, We Cannot Afford The Status Quo For Four More Years!!!
And Ron Paul- financed by the neo nazis at Stormfront!
Obama has been fighting the status quo. Yesterday I read an article on WaPo that said in 14 years Ron Paul was only able to get 1 piece of minor legislation passed out of 620 tries. He is out of step with everyone else on Capitol Hill. How do you think he'd do at working with Congress if elected if they all think he's nuts??
He is out of step because most every other member of congress is interested in expanding federal authority beyond the constitutional framework. That is the nature of government; to expand its influence and exert control over individual liberties. That is why our constitution was drafted to LIMIT federal authority, and why it has been ignored by those who would rather see their authority expanded, and the largesse of the voters who didn't see it as a big deal.
Now, I hope, we can see that the expansion of federal authority is a BIG deal and has onerous consequences for individual liberty. I want a government that is constrained against infringing on my liberties.
Well, if he is so out of step how is he planning to work with the other 534 misguided members who have no clue about their roles in Congress??LOL
uh kritt, it's 535 mostly misguided members of congress. I don't believe RP believes in the, "Can't we all just get along" song, particularly if that means abusing the constitution on a daily basis. For such principled people the Founders afforded him, as President, a veto pen, which I am sure he will use liberally.
We need this man more than ever!
Skip that just tells me what he won't do not what he will do. And I still remember the Carter administration -- Carter was also out of step with his own party on many issues. Decent man- had strong principles and wouldn't compromise. The result? One-term disaster.
Ron Paul 2012 He is the only one that has something different to say , there is not a nickels worth of difference between Obama and Newt and Romney !!!! They will tell you exactly what you want to hear , and the will flip flop every chance they get * Go Dr. Paul *
Just because someone is different doesn't mean their ideas have more merit. He's had his different ideas for 30 years and yet we have none of them in government. You would think that if his ideas had merit, someone would have caught on after 30 years.
Party of Logic and Reason. "You would think that if his ideas had merit, someone would have caught on after 30 years." I am assuming you believe the Constitution does not have merit? That is where Ron Paul's ideas spring from. It is a sad commentary to the government that those ideas did not catch on since all involved had taken and oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.
Well, the real issue is that everyone thinks they're following the Constitution. Ron Paul's approach is just a different interpretation; granted, his interpretation is much more in line with the Constitution, but everything the man believes is simply his interpretation of the language of the Constitution on its face and his interpretation of the original intent.
He just doesn't really like the fact the the Supreme Court, which is in the Constitution, has expanded the federal government's powers beyond those specifically and literally enumerated in the Constitution. But obviously as society changes, so to does some of the applicable passages of the Constitution that were purposefully left ambiguous. Ron Paul doesn't like the balance that has been found. Other people do. It's a matter of interpretation, and this is what makes Ron Paul different.
My main point was that, if Ron Paul's interpretation of the Constitution was relevant in this day and age, people would have supported him in significant numbers (or at least, more significant than have already been supported him).
I can get up in front of a bunch of people and I can tell them exactly what they want to hear. I mean, its obvious that the people are upset and its obvious why. Not rocket science. But just because I say everything you want to hear, an even if I myself believe it to be true, there is not alot Im gonna do to change a damn thing without a lotta help. Folks, that just fact. So dream the dream but sometime ya just got to face reality. It is all theatre. Not a damn one of em is doing a damn thing cept furthering their own butt.
I am a progressive who 9 times out of 10 vote Democrat. I voted for President Obama. This time, I am supporting Ron Paul. No matter how hard they try to smear him, Paul is a threat to both Democrats and Republicans in their oligarchy way of life.
aarpmom: You are NO progressive and you never were. You might try and call yourself that for some reason, but you do not understand progressivism. It is 180 degree out from Ron Paul's social Darwinism or pure lassiez faire capitalism. You sound more like Glenn Beck. So, cut the BS and simply say you will jump on any bandwagon for shock effect.
Tell me "aarpmom"- when someone takes Pauls own words and repeats them - how exactly is that a "smear"?
No one needs top make up things about Paul - his words, his writings - speak for themself.
Now you happen to agree with what he says - others may disagree - that does not make it a "smear campaign"!
Tjeff - Actually, the view of social darwinism is a BS interpretation as well. Paul doesn't want lasseiz faire capitalism, he wants a system that can correct itself and or be controllable by the local and state economics. The current system is held up by crutches.
Currently, the national political scheme is determining how tax money is spent on the local level and how business should run, even if it dosn't work in the local economic system. For example, EPA regulations for industrial sectors outside of Pittsburg have different ecomonic and environmental impacts than a mining operation in the middle of the Mojave desert. Why are the held to the same standard in lieu of individual, localized reviews.
b dune - it's smearing because of one word: "context". This article is a perfect example: "He thinks the (1) federal government has no authority to outlaw abortion, (2) no business bombing Iran to keep it from acquiring a nuclear weapon, and (3) no justification to print money unless it's backed up by gold bars."
(1) He thinks people should regulate social or religious issues through their local governments (i.e. city/state) not federal law. He thinks the same of Marriage, divorce, etc.
(2) He believes that the US has no constitutional authority to start a preemptive war. This was the case in Iraq (we're there because of WMD's, um, I mean Bin Laden's there, um, I mean Al-Queda is hidding there, um, Yeah, Sadam is evil, um, free Iraq.). Even Dubya campaigned that the US is not a "World Police."
(3) He has written 7 books on economics and has predicted every bubble/crash in the market since 1988. Based on a review of markets, economics and cause/effect trends he concluded that a market without a substaining value to the currency will fail. Look at the world, that's a pretty accurate statement. The US, the EU and China are all having currency issues, Mexico is not. Mexico is also one of the largest export suppliers of Gold. the Middle east is oils, South Africa is gems. See a trend? What's your solution to stabalize an economy which has a value based on projections?
Paul's platform is extremely regressive - so I'm having difficulty believing you are a progressive. His ideas are antiquated-- but they seem refreshing now. Paul would take us back to the 19th century - before labor laws, civil rights legislation and consumer protection laws existed.
Its attractive because it sounds so simple but we can't go back. Also, do you really trust the states to do what is right without ANY federal oversight??
Actually, he doesn't advocate the abolishment of civil rights or consumer protection and he's always advocated labor laws on a local level. The minimum wage in NYC is in no way relevant to the wage in Omaha, let the local economy dictate.
Also, its attractive not because it is simple but because it is backed with fact, not a fairy tale. What I find funny is that the current state of the federal laws is the most intrusive and restrictive of civil liberties that it's ever been since the 40's. Have you ever thought that the persons writting laws in the last few decades made a wrong turn and we need to go back to the fork?
We need to return to simplicity and conservatism at this time. Too many radical new ideas today are so tangled.
Yeah #12.3
Thanks for proving my point - there is "no smearing"!
Yeah, I'm that guy: Think about the consequences of having multi-national corporations regulated by local and state laws. We're not talking about an academic argument here; we're talking about the real world of business in a highly-interdependent world, including a world of ultra-high speed communications and transportation. Let me touch on just a few items.
Where would multi-national corporations move their home offices? They would gravitate to those states and communities that would give them the best non-regulatory deal, would they not? Think of all the corporations in the USA trying to do business with each other and with their world-wide competitors in such a world. Everything would go "bump in the night," as the Brits say. The corporate world would have real problems with him. Ron Paul's politico-economic system would destroy the nation in the 21st century because it is designed for a world BEFORE the Great Second Industrial Revolution, 1880 - 1973 or so. (We now live in a post-industrial revolution which is even more complicated than the years of the Industrial Revolution.)
Paul makes the world and its problems sound so simple, because he takes you back to a simpler time and place. Unfortunately, the world is no longer there and hasn't been for decades and decades. Further, it never was the world you seem to think it was. It was a terrible place for the working classes and poor to live.
Paul is a threat to the globe. And most people know it. He comes with a history and has been around for quite a while now. Nothing new
Here's a man with ideas that actually respect our constitution. His character is irreproachable so of course the other candidates will cook up some lies and mis-quotes and the media will exploit them like the bottom feeders they are. Hopefully his strength will prevail and he will be our next President.
His character is not irreproachable. You are forgetting about the newsletters he published for 10 years to white supremacist groups-- the ones he made more than a million dollars off of, but now conveniently tells us he didn't know what was in them.??????
put up a link
Kritt, so in other words, Paul is responsible for the ideas of other people. Ok, I'll bite:
"I can no more disown (Jeremiah Wright) than I can disown the black community." - Obama
"In the 21st century, white America got a wake-up call after 9/11/01. White America and the western world came to realize that people of color had not gone away, faded into the woodwork or just 'disappeared' as the Great White West kept on its merry way of ignoring black concerns."- Jeremiah Wright
"Just before Obama’s nationally televised campaign kickoff rally last Feb. 10, the candidate disinvited Wright from giving the public invocation. Wright explained: “When [Obama’s] enemies find out that in 1984 I went to Tripoli” to visit Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi with Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, “a lot of his Jewish support will dry up quicker than a snowball in hell.” According to Wright, Obama then told him, “'You can get kind of rough in the sermons, so what we’ve decided is that it’s best for you not to be out there in public.'” But privately, Obama and his family prayed with Wright just before the presidential announcement." -- Ronald Kessler
"We started the AIDS virus. ...We are only able to maintain our level of living by making sure that Third World people live in grinding poverty." - Jeremiah Wright
If his name was on them and he was the one who published them and made money off them-- yes. And, we have only his word that he didn't write them--
I have a nasty cynical habit of not automatically believing what comes out of a politician's mouth at election time.
Is Jeremiah Wright running for office or is it Ron Paul? What am I missing here?
He was an honorary publisher, should we blame people who have honorary degrees from colleges for what those colleges do?
I would like to know where is all the coverage on MF Global? I find it odd that no one is speaking about how President Obama's #1 fund raiser bet billions on a European bailout. Now, the money is gone and no one is held accountable. Gee, isn't this like the bank bailout - how, it may have started under President Bush but Attorney General Eric Holder has yet to prosecute one person? BTW, Pres. Obama returned all the funds raised by former CEO Jon Corzine.
The only decent show on this channel is Dylan Rattigan. All the others are nothing but hand puppets for the Obama administration. And I'm a progressive saying this.
Ron Paul is a flake and an anti-Semite. Obama would bowl him over in a landslide. Remember Sharon Angle? If she didn't win the primary, Harry Reid would be unemployed now. Folks need to think this through.
Please tell us what makes him a flake and anti-Semite...
Yea, I'd like to know the relevance of ignorant name calling as well?
All you have to do is read a few of his old newsletters that he now disavows to se he is not electable. He thinks 9/11 was an inside job and doesn't believe the U.S. should have any say regarding Iran's posession of nuclear weapons.
*shakes head* I can always tell exactly who's at least taken the time to read up and study Dr. Paul and those who only listen to media sound bites. Newsletters from 20+ years ago? Really that's all you have? So should Iran have a say in whether or not we have nuclear weapons? You know good for the goose kinda thing.
archtechits and engineers for 911 truth dot org You might want to read what the experts say.
shhh... obama lies.. come on, lets not forget the goal.. a nutbag like this, though very intriguing, could never win a general.. lets just let it happen.. he may even allow some good debate over some issues we need to fix anyways... either way, obamas a shoe in
Power to the People!
You lie worse than Obama there. Ron Paul knows that Osama Bin Laden was behind 9/11, but the fact is, we got him already, it is mission accomplished and time to bring our troops home, stop the wasteful spending on useless "wars" that have NOTHING to do with defending our country. And Iran doesn't have ANY sort of missles that have capabilities to reach the US, so they aren't a threat to our national security either.
Obama IS bringing the troops home.
BTW, Iran can affect the oil flow into this country which hurts us economically. This is the problem with Ron Paul and his supporters-- they have a naive view of the world and our complicated issues-- they think we can go back to the 1880's and life will be just peachy! Its the Forrest Gump campaign!
J the J - I disagree, the one strength Ron Paul has is his ability to speak intelligently while being well informed. Obama is a speaker, when pressed on issues he has a tendency to become repeatitive. I think in the debates of a general election, Obama would have a hard time holding his ground.
Against Romney or Gingrich, I think Obama will beat them hands down.
Ron Paul has spoken well of Arabs (Semitic people). He isn't fond of the East European Ashkinazi invaders of Palestine, but then who in their right mind could be?
Nope you're wrong.
http://news.firedoglake.com/2011/10/15/us-to-withdraw-all-troops-from-iraq/
This is the right move for the wrong reason. The troops are coming home only because Iraq’s government would not give legal immunity to the remaining forces in the field.
Obama lies about the real reason the troops are comng home. Stop drinking his koolaid.
So if someone doesnt like your man or disagrees then you come back with why you dont like their man? Tit for Tat, You put down mine, I will put down yours. Kids in a freaking sandbox,
How about some non partisan sources? Then duke it out with facts.
factcheck dot org. Evidently Paul has mispoken, falsely on many things, just like the rest of the liars. So. go to that site and check it out for yourselves. One of the things I defended him for was speaking it the way it was. Well I was wrong. Go see for yourselves. But for us Obama supporters. Dont get upset, encourage them to vote for paul, because if he runs on a third party ticket, it can only help Obama. Win Win....
Non-partisan sources? This is media we're talking about here, there is no such thing.
Wow, I can't believe the media trys to spin following the constitution as EXTREME. What is extreme, unpopular, and unelectable is every other candidate (democrat and republican) that has sold our freedoms and stolen this country's wealth. Ron Paul is a true patriot. Ron Paul and no one else will get my vote.
The coverage of Ron Paul, in this election and the last, illustrates how corrupt and incompetent the press has become on both sides. It's not the liberal media. It's not the conservative media. It's the corporate media. The thing that has everyone from corporations to politicians to pundits terrified is a truly honest non-corruptible candidate.
If we had a decent press, Ron Paul would have been elected the last time and we would have been out of Afghanistan and Iraq by now.
Afghanistan troop deaths under a few years of Obama have far surpassed those under 7 years of Bush.
I never see images of wounded soldiers. I have to look to find the casualties.
These wars are so under-reported.
But we all know who Casey Anthony is.
Thanks CNN. Thanks Fox.
I hope Ron Paul is the GOP nominee, that ensures President Obama will get re-elected. Ron Paul is living in the past...he has not changed his ideas in 40 years....some say that he has stuck by his ideals...I say he is inflexible and stagnant....most of his ideas will not solve America's issues, in fact most will make things worse.
Yes, if Paul is the nominee, President Obama wins easily.
I m pretty sure that stopping permanent warfare, getting the federal government out of drug wars, cutting spending, getting out of the debt and restoring individual liberties would make things worse. I can barely think of anything that could be more devastating for the country.
Woodrow Wilson thought he was stopping permanent warfare with the League of Nations. Twenty years later the second world war began. This is a fairy tale.
And I don't want the liberty to breathe dirty air and drink polluted water because the EPA was never specifically allowed to have power under the Constitution.
Kritt - if you think the creation of the League of Nations, or the lack of the LON, would have stopped the rise of the Nazi party then you need to do your research. WWII could have been stopped, but the rise of a pissed off party was inevitable.
Dragon - your right, he has stuck by his ideals. However, if you were right on on predicting the outcome of most economic policies since the Reagan era, would you change them?
Dragon loves those flip-flopping candidates, you know the ones that make a campaign promise to:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kr9ywEFRQkQ
3 years later, and Iraq had to FORCE him to actually bring the troops home, under threat of being tried as war criminals if he didn't. Yup, we can take that to the bank alright, we just can't actuallty cash it.
Kritt, we're already breathing polluted air and drinking dirty water with the EPA, they don't actually force any companies to stop polluting, they just fine the ones they catch, who keep on polluting and simply pay their fines ever 4-5 years that the EPA comes around to inspect them. For the corporations today, they simply see this as a normal business expense.
@Yeah--
I never said he could have been stopped by the League. BUT the US was in an isolationist phase and refused to join it which weakened it considerably. If it were up to RP, we would have left Hitler to his own devices since this was a foreign war that didn't concern us.
Our late entry -- which was due again to isolationist sentiment, allowed many more deaths in Europe than there would have been if we got in early. Hitler would have been much easier to take down when he first came to power than after he had re-militarized Germany and invaded Czechoslovakia, Poland, France etc..
Prohibition--- the EPA fines polluters-- not a great deterrent but a lot better than nothing.
Ron Paul is NOT electable in the general election. Stop dreaming that he is. If he wins in Iowa, it will just be more proof that the Iowa Caucuses are irrelevant. It is stupid that little, ultra-conservative states vote first. We need to see how the candidates can appeal to diverse groups of people. Let's do the first primaries in IL, PA, CA, NY, etc....
Gee Liberal Barry, that's a great idea...and then we can become of dictatorship too. IDIOT
Gee, David, I am conservative and agree!
David ... instead of calling people names, perhaps you should explain your logic, assuming you have any.
Barry,
IL - Blue State, CA - Blue State, PA - Blue State, NY - Blue State, Iowa - Blue State, New Hampshire - Blue State, Nevada - Blue State
All of the caucuses, those you mentioned and the first ones, are in primarily democratic states. In 2008 they all went to Obama. If Ron Paul wins even 20% of them for the primary, would that change your mind as to the relevance?
Did anyone else notice Barry just named 4 states that are considered 'blue'?
Why on earth would they hold primaries in blue states, man? That isn't very reflective of their party. If anything, IA and NH are both perfect choices since they're SWING states.
It's like holding it in TX or MS. Yeah, those states are red...but the voters are going to vote whomever Fox tells them to vote for.
Running through the swing states for a primary is the best approach to it. You get a consensus on how candidates will fare in a general election.
That's fine. Select other states. My point is that independent and moderate voters are the swing voters. Without them, no one can get elected. However, the voters in Iowa, NH and SC are not a good proxy for the general voter. Based on poll results, Iowa voters seem to love extreme right candidates that can prove that they're "true" conservatives, while independents/moderates are turned off by those same positions. So, one can't argue that the winner in Iowa has any relevance to popularity in the general election.
Take a page from the consumer products companies that test their products in carefully selected, highly representative markets, and choose states that more closely mirror the population at large for the first elections.
Isn't Iowa technically a blue state last election?
And aren't they considered 'faint blue', as in liable to go red at any minute?
Why is campaigning there a bad idea again?
Oh boy, a growing threat to the staus quo of central banking corruption might actually get a "second look" by voters???
The elite "bankers" must be sweating in their shorts.. how else can you explain the growing puddle at their feet??
his honest statements make him a very respected candidate. Even if what he believes is a little radical and out there he does not play and lie to his current audience. He is consistent in every statement and belief and he is the kind of guy you could ask to hold your wallet. He is just simply a little too far out there to be electable and the establishment, Dem or Republican, can't fathom Dr. Paul's ideals. He will however probably cause enough stir, possibly even jump to a Libertarian Ticket, to devastate the GOP. He has that much support and would take it with him... He is a Libertarian and has strong beliefs in his views and he is also considered the first "Tea Party" Ideologue, America is just not ready to live in the 1700's again. The other GOP candidates are such liars and hypocrites that Paul is probably the best candidate but the establishment will push him out of the GOP.
I'm having trouble seeing him as a very respected candidate. He still hasn't explained why he published a racist, antisemitic, homophobic newsletter for over 10 years to white supremacist and neo-Nazi groups. No one could publish something like that for so long and have no idea of its content. Plus he made over a million dollars in profit from these fringe elements and may have incited them to violence.
Ok.
He disavowed those. Then and now.
Now, if you could explain Bill Clinton's 1992 order for a mentally handicapped man to be put to death (Google: Ricky Ray Rector) and claim it wasn't race-incited I'll be amazed.
You see, dear Kritt, the president of the NAACP has publically said 'This is BS, Ron Paul isn't racist.' And that seems like a solid source for me.
He's the only one pointing out how certain litigation is intended as a war on minorities and urbanites.
And I'm also getting the impression...that you don't, nor ever have, had a significant senior management position. CEO? Startup Business Owner? Senior Manager, VP, director? Because a lot of stuff happens in the day-to-day that you simply can't keep track of. And, if you had inhabited a position of some authority, you would be quite aware of that.
Is it a free pass? No. But is it a moderation? Oh yes. Much more than Billy running home from DC to sign the order to kill a retarded black man.
Thanks for playing.
Tek--- The person you are referring to is not the head of the NAACP- he's the head of the NAACP in Austin-- big difference--Just because one person from the NAACP gives him a pass does that mean that nobody else should question him? I don't think so.
And- the reason I am not going to bother to defend Clinton is that he's not running for president and is precluded from doing so by Dr. Paul's beloved Constitution. Try using an example of somebody who is in the current race, and you might have a point.
If RP couldn't keep track of his own newsletter when he was a CEO - how do you expect him to keep track of what goes out under his name as Chief Executive of the United States??Pretty busy job for most people- and RP is getting up there in age. Oh-wait- I get it -- since the Federal govt will be reduced to a do nothing entity, Paul will have plenty of time right??ROFL!
What a hit piece....do you people in the media ever see the good in people?
I have voted Dem all my life. I am pretty liberal democrat actually. Next election I plan on voting for Ron Paul. That should tell you something.
That there is something under the hood that needs checking?
That the current one-party system of Demoblicans or Republicrats is broken?
I'm betting on my version being the correct one.
That you haven't done your research on Dr. Paul.
Oh?
see above where I gave you a little horse-whipping. I've done significantly more than yourself and actually have a factual basis for every word typed by these flickering fingers.
See, I do support Dr. Paul. And I find it to be quite amusing that you want to bring up some pamphlets signed in the 90's that have been disowned multiple times. Now you could either believe him, or not, but an argument you have yet to make.
Ron Paul is a long time supporter of the John Birch Society. He gave a speech to his good KKK and neo-nazi friends at their 50th Anniversary in 2009.
KKK started planned parenthood, you know.
Even some good can come out of a truly evil organization.
Food for thought.
So you agree Ron Paul supports truly evil organizations.
I really don't care what "good" the KKK or neo-nazis have ever done. They are racists, homophobic, and delusional. Chew on that.
Getting paid for giving speeches is not supporting an organization. If you don't like a particular organization or religion, don't join it. Last I heard this was supposed to be a country of free citizens, not a collection of mindless automatons.
Well Vietnam Vet, I think that it's impossible to discriminate. I'm sure those guys in the evil orgs also buy cars, so does that make a Ford Dealership responsible? Or they buy milk, does that make their local dairy responsible?
Freedom is getting to say your piece, and allowing others to say theirs.
It's a 2-way street, bud.
"KKK started planned parenthood, you know.
Even some good can come out of a truly evil organization."
Yes, and the Nazi's restored the German economy. What is your point??
Taxpayer-- Every politician knows that he/she will be judged by his/her appearances in front of controversial groups. The reason that Haley Barbour didn't run for the nomination is because he spent too much time giving speeches to the CCC in the South-- and that would be too much to overcome.
Tek-- If the KKK started Planned Parenthood they did so so that the mongrel races wouldn't reproduce at an undesirable rate. Hitler helped with population control too, forcing women who had Jewish husbands or lovers to abort their babies.
You call it lemons, but it can all be made into lemonade.
The nazis did terrible things.
The US settlers (see: Manifest Destiny) also did terrible things.
My point comes in the hypocrisy generally displayed by the electorate at large who believes their s*** doesn't stink.
You make the best with the hand you're dealt.
@kritt
Dude, are you unemployed and angry? Is this all you have to fill your day up with?
It's sad that the GOP has gone so far to the right, that an extreme libertarian may win in Iowa. People need to do their homework about the libertarian philosophy to understand what Ron Paul is really all about. He is a lion in sheep's clothing who represents the MEME way of life. Paul is against public education and for privatizing whatever organizations can be privatized. It's what he does not say that is key as the people in the states that elected GOP/Tea Party governors and legislatures learned in the 2010 elections. Ron appears to be so myopically focused and uses conspiracy theories to get his points across. Isolationism will move this country back in time and thereby limit opportunities for many people. It is only because the GOP Presidential field is so poor that a person like Ron Paul can take center stage.