RuPaul has a better chance of winning the Republican nomination than Ron Paul.

"Ladies and gentlemen, Mizz Rachel Tensions!!"

I wasn't ever really all that impressed with Mr. Paul. I'm convinced he's really Ross Perot.

And I'm waaay over Andrew Sullivan. Way way over.

You cannot truly believe in the Constitution of you only believe in it when it suits you.

I'm pro-choice, but I'm smart enough not to throw out the best candidate over a single issue, especially when the candidate is fundamentally correct about that issue.

There is no Constitutional right to an abortion. Leave it up to the states.

If you want it to be a federal right, then change the Constitution and you can quit crying everytime a conservative President appoints a new judge. (I know, it's far too much work to do it properly. But that's the only reason it's still an issue, because neither the right or left is strong enough to amend the Constituion and therefore choose to ignore it when it doesn't suit them. )

Because the federal government did not allow airlines to arm pilots of security staff, we got 9/11. But somehow the guy saying that the airlines should be allowed to arm pilots and'or security staff is crazy.

That's weird.

(racial tension? please. If the black community isn't strong enough after 50 years of programs designed to empower them, then perhaps it is time to look at some different programs. Here's a thought - let the black community fix itself. Obviously we in the white world aren't doing a very good job at it. Just when they were making inroads, we handed their jobs over to the illegal immigrants. )

Alexia, YAWN. The constitution says that the judicial branch interprets the constitution and decides what laws are constitutional -- not you and not Ron Paul. Libertarians' nonsensical views on what is and isn't constitutional defy the constitution itself.

Also, thanks for supporting my theory that the libertarian party is the 21st century front for the Klan.

Alexia @ 3,

Uh, Mizz Rachel Tensions is actually a Too Wong Foo reference.

"Because the federal government did not allow airlines to arm pilots of security staff, we got 9/11."

Yeah, it couldn't have anything to do with our disastrous foreign policies over the last 50 years. They hate our Freedom™.

Also, arming all those elementary and high school students will prevent school shootings. And giving a free gun away with every liquor purchase will stop drunken shootings.

Lock'n load, kids!!!

Well, I'm a libertarian who supports Ron Paul in spite of his stand on abortion. There is SO MUCH more at stake in this election and NO OTHER major candidate is even talking about addressing the real issues.
No other serious contender even talks about ending the war in Iraq immediately. Ron Paul says "We just marched in, we can just march out." That alone gets him my vote.
But there's more.
ONLY Ron Paul talks about repealing the PATRIOT act and the Military commissions act.
ONLY Ron Paul talks about abolishing the income tax and replacing it with nothing.
Only Ron Paul talks about cutting spending enough to make possible a repeal of the income tax.
ONLY Ron Paul talks about getting rid of the inflation tax by abolishing the Federal Reserve.
ONLY Ron Paul talks about a foreign policy that actually makes sense. You know, the one the Founders recommended. Peace, trade and friendly relations with all nations and alliances with none. That one.
Any one of these points would be enough for Ron Paul to win my vote, but he's right on ALL of them. We can argue about abortion AFTER Ron Paul saves the country.
And besides, what's wrong with having different laws in different states? That's what a federal republic MEANS.
As for the topic of global warming, yes Ron Paul has a lot to learn. He claims that he is still a skeptic. What he needs to learn, and to put forth firmly and strongly is that man-made global warming is a SCAM. It is a lie based on a theory that has been proven false.
Carbon Dioxide is NOT in any way, shape or form a climate driver. CO2 levels in the atmosphere follow global temperatures, they do not cause them. (Unless you think that cause can follow effect. The ice core records prove that CO2 levels rise 800 to 1000 years AFTER global temperature rises.)
The IPCC LIED about historic CO2 levels. This has been proven by EG Beck who demonstrated that CO2 levels have been higher than today several times in the last 200 years. For example, in 1940 the CO2 level was 420ppm, compared to today's level of 379ppm. Funny thing is in the years following 1940 global temperatures went DOWN.
Man's measly 6 gigatons of CO2 per year mean nothing compared to natures 180 gigatons.
It's all a scam. It's a lie.
I just hope Ron Paul gets that information soon and makes it part of his campaign.
For now, I'll just be content knowing that Ron Paul just got 45% in a nationwide telephone poll that polled 3000 Americans. Romney was in second place with only 20%. See:

http://www.impactpolling.com/

Better join the Ron Paul Revolution now, or find yourself eating a lot of crow later.

Oh yeah, bring on the crazy . . .

I can't support Paul for so many reasons. I can't justify not caring about abortion (which would undoubtedly remain legal in my state) and damning women in other states to unsafe illegal abortions.

Ok, all for repealing the Patriot and Millitary Commisson Acts. And trying to have a more peaceful foreign policy would be great. And I agree with him that 9/11 happened because of our policies.

But the income tax? I don't know, I sort of like the roads, the disaster relief, regulating agencies (though I will admit the FDA, FCC, EPA, etc., need to overhauled and not filled with political appointees), etc. that income taxes provide.

Also, when we let the "market" determine everything (i.e. "regulate itself") we ended up with incredibly rich people, very poor people, people being injured at work, being harmed by unsafe products (again, the FDA needs to be overhauled). We started regulating agencies, and conditions improved. Then we started deregulating in the 80's, and we're starting to move back in that direction. Ron Paul would bring us back to that.

Frankly, I don't give a damn about whether global warming is man made or not. We'd benefit from not poisioning the environment and not depending on foreign oil regardless.

I wonder how many of his moderate supporters are aware that his libertarianism is trumped by his commitment towards "bringing back" a Christian America. His main objection to government services seems not to be that they aren't specifically mentioned in the constitution, but rather that they have obviated the need for similar church run programs, thereby removing power from churches in our society.

I am a liberal who supports Ron Paul 100% because matters of war & peace, tyranny or freedom far outweigh the social issues I disagree with him about. Please look past personal issues tosee that preventing WWIII is at stake. Peace.

The neglect of the environment (it's not an "issue," it's our frickin' planet) and the complete decay of our infrastructure and of any kind of oversight over the corporate rape of our country is kind of a deal-breaker for me.

Not sure where to put this: WHAT is up with the HUGE font? It hurts my eyes.

@8 Actually, Federal Income taxes don't pay for any of that shit. Federal Income taxes pay the interest on our debt, and that's about it.

...oh, and Ron Paul has several very good ideas. He also has several bat-shit crazy ideas. In the end I'm pretty sure he's un-electable.

@8. Women in states with outlawed abortion(if that even happens) could easily travel to another state with some assistance. And yes, a woman's right to abortiion it important, but so are the lives of Iraqis. Easily a million are dead because of Dem/Republican policies in the middle east, and this does not even include the 500,000 dead kids from the Clinton sactions before the war.
If Ron Paul can end the war that would do more for the envirorment then any weak, party of Compromise Democrate piece of shit bill. Our military is so massive think how much greenhouse gass it produced every secons as it rips the middeleast apart.

Wow.. After reading the comments here I'm not sure who the "crazies" are. Why must the government be responsible for disaster relief? We saw how well that works on several occassions but especially during Katrina. The roads and highways should be maintained by the states. Where is it that people can't understand that the states have the choice to decide what's right for their citizens. I'm less then 50 yo but I can remember back to the days when states had the rights to make choices before the Fed gov't told them what to do. We had a much better America then. We've always been in wars I disagreed with but we were in less and at least for better reasons then we have now.

Read the Constitution and study it if you don't know what it says. It was carefully crafted to try to avoid what we have now.
We have have an "America" primarily because brave men (and women) didn't agree with excessive governmental oversight and over taxation. We need to get back to our roots and fast before we have no America left to fight for.

JMHO

Wow. The more the Libertarians talk, the more the crazy comes out.

The main philosophy seems to be "let's do the exact opposite of everything that works successfully in every other (sane) country and hope for the best."

Libs, would you care to point to a country that's successfully implementing these wise policies??

Yikes.

The only thing our income tax pays for is the interest on government debt. Government debt is that large. The only other time US debt was even close to this high (as a percentage of GDP) was just before the great depression. We need to reduce spending, not increase taxes.
If the income tax were repealed, the US Government would be back to the tax revenues of year 2000. I am sure our federal government could operate from the tax revenues of 2000, and there are many taxes other than the income tax.
Our roads are paid for with the gas tax and state taxes. Education is paid for with state taxes. Almost all infrastructure and services are paid for with local taxes. The federal income tax is in fact "grossly unconstitutional" and has only been around since 1913.

Watch this video and you will feel better about our income taxes. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7757684583209015812

The reason corporations are so strong and influential is not because of the free market. What we are experiencing right now is not in fact a free market, it is corporatism. The government (including democrats) is in bed with corporations.
Billions of corporate dollars are spent every year lobbying politicians to do there bidding. We cannot fix the problem by putting democrats in power.
The only way to fix it is for the American people to demand a complete disconnect between politicians and corporations while electing representatives that will act accordingly.
No to lobbyists and no to corporate financing of elections. Corporations are not human; they do not deserve to take part in the political process.

There is a reason Pat Robertson and the Christian right will not support Ron Paul, because he will give the power back to the people. Not the Church. Ron Paul has introduced more bills in congress that would increase individual liberty and reduce government power than any other politician.
He does care about Religion, but he cares about the rights of the individual (which includes every citizen and every minority group) above all else.
The only reason he has such a strong view on abortion is because he believes unborn children are human. He is a doctor that has delivered four thousand children and has witness an abortion where a child was removed from his mother and then tossed in a plastic container where it then died from suffocation in front of him. Is it wrong for him not to want children to die? Who is the authority that says unborn children don’t have the right to life?

Guns are not bad. Even if all guns were outlawed, criminals would still have them. Why? Because criminals do not care about the law!!! The only individuals gun restriction rights affect are law-abiding citizens.
Take the Columbine kids for instance. Even if every gun was somehow destroyed, they still could have easily made homemade explosives and used knifes to kill people. Killing another human is not technically difficult. If one has the desire to kill, they will do so with or without a gun. What if instead of killing a few individuals at Columbine, those kids decided to burn down the school with explosives while throwing a Molotov cocktail in every classroom they passed. Guns don’t kill people.
Hundreds of scientific studies have proven that gun restriction laws actually increase crime. It is illegal to have firearms in virtually every high crime urban area in the United States. This does not stop the record levels of killings or crime in the schools, streets or homes.
I do not in fact own firearms, but it is not wise to assume information is correct just because bleeding hearts have been pushing a false idea around for decades.

Jamier!!!
That is the most foolish comment I have every read. You obviously have no knowledge of the intent of the constitution or the motivations of the founding fathers. Activist judges do not have the right to conveniently interpret the constitution.
What if a liberal member of the Supreme Court died tomorrow and Bush got to appoint one more before he left office. Our country would then be at the mercy of a majority of right wing activist judges for many years. I am sure you do not want that.
The constitution can only be interpreted the way the founding fathers intended it to be, which they actually documented quiet well. Anybody who wants to know the interpretation of the constitution only needs to study the principles of the founding father as well as their thousands of examples of their understanding of the constitution.

If anybody wants to debate any of this positions, I would be more than happy to do so.
-RussellK30@gmail.com

A STRANGER IN FOOL'S PARADISE

Strange how those who oppose Ron Paul's policies rarely provide reasons for their own stands.

Most of the opposition boils down to: 'I don't know why I don't like him. I just don't. Now let me call him some crazy names and make myself feel better.'

Well, now you feel better and you still live in the crazy world of George Bush. Liking his little world?

I prefer a man who protects the rule of law and the constitution - to a man gone mad who thinks he is a king appointed by God and can do no wrong.

Perhaps what we need is for Congress to pass a law stating that the President is infallible. Then dismiss the Congress and the courts.

Everything will be all right then. Everything will be all right.

Now go to sleep. Go to sleep. When you wake up everything will be wonderful!

Women in states with outlawed abortion(if that even happens) could easily travel to another state with some assistance

Are you aware that many states already have laws on the books making abortion illegal that would go into effect immediately if Roe v. Wade were overturned? And what do you mean by “some assistance?” Are you suggesting they would be helped out, monetarily, by some governmental funding source? By their health insurance (if they have it)? Or are you suggesting that someone will maybe help them out, and fuck them if they can’t afford it?
The argument that “the lives of Iraqis is also important” is ridiculous. Obviously. But the right to privacy and make decisions about my own body is one I hold near and dear and will fight tooth and nails to keep for myself and other women. The fact of the matter is, we fucked up in Iraq. Thousands of Iraqis will die whether we leave or not. I don’t have a good solution to save the Iraqi people, but suggesting the pullout of all our troops will save Iraqi lives is preposterous.

Why must the government be responsible for disaster relief? We saw how well that works on several occasions but especially during Katrina.

I agree that the government screwed up big time during Katrina, but that doesn’t mean that government has no place in disaster relief; it just means we need to appoint competent people rather than trolls who espouse the same religious and political philosophies of the person doing the appointment. One can make the argument that states could do it better, but it’s an unproven point. And if states were to take over in this respect, state taxes would go up.

Agreed with several others that our income taxes pay off the interest on our debt. But they could pay for good things like health insurance, child care, maternity leave, social security, etc. These are good things. The argument that if we didn’t have income tax we could pay for these things ourselves doesn’t work for me, either. The poorest of people couldn’t afford them anyways, and a rise in state tax (which would be necessary if the states took over all federal services) would wipe out the advantage of no federal tax.

The reason corporations are so strong and influential is not because of the free market. What we are experiencing right now is not in fact a free market, it is corporatism. The government (including democrats) is in bed with corporations. Billions of corporate dollars are spent every year lobbying politicians to do there bidding. We cannot fix the problem by putting democrats in power. The only way to fix it is for the American people to demand a complete disconnect between politicians and corporations while electing representatives that will act accordingly. No to lobbyists and no to corporate financing of elections. Corporations are not human; they do not deserve to take part in the political process.

Agreed. We should stop corporate personhood, stop corporate welfare (except in very limited circumstances). But what Paul wants to do is let corporations regulate themselves. This does not work.

Is it wrong for him not to want children to die? Who is the authority that says unborn children don’t have the right to life?

And who is the authority who gets to decide what goes on with my body? I guess we’re just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

Personally, I’m for limited gun control, so I don’t really have a problem with Paul in that area. It’s the abortion and anti-regulation thing that really bothers me.

Thanks, people, for pointing out that most income tax pays for government debt. So... what happens to that debt when Ron Paul is elected and somehow convinces congress to repeal income taxes?

See, that's the problem with these libertarians - they live in a fantasy land of ideals, where reality cannot impinge. We are at A and the libertarians want to be at B. But they can't build a road to get there (probably because they're waiting for a privately run company to do it for them).

Dianna, so the soultion is to vote for Democrates? A paul presidency seems appealing to me if he abolishes the IRS, THE CIA, etc. I think, but am not sure, that if the Fedral goverment was defunded, the states would take up the slack and use out tax moneies to better ends. Our entire US work force does not even pay enough taxs to pay for our military and our wars, thus the massive deficiet. I am not the biggest fan of Ron Paul, but as a Blue State progressive, he seems to be the best candadite so far.Your right to choose is important, but your desire to vote democratic to protect this right is frankly, retarded. The Dems have neither the poltical will, or the apptitude to protect any of your rights, read the news for christ's sake.

Where did all these crazies come from.

@13 and 18, the federal income tax does not just go to debt service. The government paid $318 billion in interest in 2003. The same year, the government pulled in $916 billion from individual income taxes. The only other major federal tax revenue comes from payroll taxes. Theoretically, we're only supposed to be spending that on Social Security. All other tax revenues equalled a paltry $406 billion in 2003. That's what's paying the interest on our debt.

@18, the national debt was at the same level in the mid-50s. It was at its highest point (at a 120 percent of GDP) just at the end of World War II. And, we would barely pull in 2000 revenues if we abolished the income tax, when you factor in inflation. You did take inflation into consideration, right? You know, that inconvenient annual thing that makes everything more expensive.

@16, you're absolutely right. If the Feds hadn't started interfering in worthless issues like civil rights, if they had just left everything up to the states, we would be so much better off. Just like Trent Lott observed, the country would have been so much better if only Strom Thurmond had been elected President.

Reproductive rights are a fundamental element to personal liberty. By opposing abortion, not just personally, but politically, Paul has made it clear that he doesn't give a fuck about personal liberty, at least not for women. There are already laws on the books in many states making it illegal to transport a minor over state lines for the purposes of getting an abortion. Anti-abortion states will do everything necessary to keep their female chattel from exercising their basic human rights. Roe v. Wade was fought on just that issue. The original Roe had been raped, was indigent and couldn't afford to travel all the way to California for an abortion.

@18, the founding fathers deliberately created a framework of government. One that can be built upon and, yes, interpreted as society changes. I'm assuming that you know nothing about English common law, upon which our system is founded. Judges have enormous power in the English system to interpret the laws. Stop spouting "libertarian" talking points and try reading a book.

I repeat:

Libs, would you care to point to a country that's successfully implementing your wise policies??

I can name a dozen countries that are successfully implementing the policies that I believe in, starting with Canada and working through Europe. Is there any evidence whatsoever that your ideas work?

Any takers? Anyone?

Hello?

(crickets chirping)

Ohh, thanks, keshmeshi, for saving me a lot of typing.

Shit like GJ's "Your right to choose is important, but your desire to vote democratic to protect this right is frankly, retarded" make me want to hurt someone.

You want to hurt me for stating a truth? Bush has gotton just about everythng he has wanted from the democrates, and you want to hurt me? LOL. You dumb bitch.

#24
Libertarianism is not a form of government; it is a political philosophy that espouses small government and high levels of social and economic liberty.
Any government policy that is intended to increase liberty or decrease the size of government to minimally necessary levels is based on libertarian principles.
If your reject the libertarian philosophy, you also reject the philosophy of the founding fathers. The goal of the constitution was in fact to maximize liberty and minimize government. Do you reject our constitution?
There are a few counties that implemented small government with increased levels of liberty. Our constitution for one is based on libertarian principles, but Belgium, France and other European countries have had strong libertarian principles.

Two funny stories (not really.)
#1 Our constitution is more or less based off a similar document that Belgium instituted after there revolution from Spain as well as general libertarian principles that were and still are present in much of Europe. America copied principles that were already present in political discussion and practice, but because America was able to establish and defend the constitution, it is the most successful government ever.
It is too bad that America is falling prey to socialism. Socialist societies always fail. Corruption is uncontrollable in socialist societies, and if we are intent on implementing socialist policies, we may very well fall to the same fate as all the others. It looks good on paper, but not so much in practice.
#2 America is one of only a couple countries that associate liberalism with out the principles of our democratic party. Before the democrat’s hijacked liberalism, it meant libertarianism. Libertarianism is virtually every western society is just liberalism.
These principles are alive and well, which is also why there is so much fuss over Ron Paul and why there are so many international Ron Paul movements even while they can’t vote for him!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LwSD_CvqIk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdkorcJUTZY

You shouldn’t assume that big government is necessarily good just because big government is prevalent across the world right now. The plague was quite successful and widespread too, but it didn’t exactly call for a celebration.

#23 keshmeshi
You big dummy. The founding fathers didn’t intend for the government to be able to interpret the constitution however they liked. Listen up. This may be difficult for you to understand. If the government could interpret the constitution however they wanted to…there would be absolutely NO POINT IN A CONSTITUTION!!!! Why create rules that the government has to follow, only to have them interpret their own rules!!!!! I don’t get it!!! Is tyranny fun? Is it enjoyable to have a government control every aspect of ones life!!!

“Reproductive rights are a fundamental element to personal liberty.” This assumption is logical until one classifies an unborn child as human. Do you think that an unborn child is not human? As far as abortion goes, I actually lean pro-choice, but that doesn’t mean I don’t understand why Ron Paul thinks the way he does. He makes some very good points. You talk about the freedom of a women to do whatever she wants with her body, but what about the freedom of a child not to die! A child is a human. Humans have the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. To say that Ron Paul doesn’t believe in individual liberty because he thinks a child has the right to live is absolutely ludicrous. To base ones support for him on this one issue while supporting a fascist like Hillary (whoever does) is even crazier. Just so you know, the original Roe no longer supports the right to chose, she is now pro-life. I am not saying that this takes away from the rational of the Roe vs. Wade ruling, but it is something to think about nonetheless.

Well, I don't know how I can compete with such convincing arguments as "you dumb bitch," but only a man could say that wanting to keep the rights to my own body are retarded.

You are correct about government debt it is at 120%+ and increasing. I mixed it up with the total US debt. It is the highest it has ever been as percentage of GDP at 300%+. The only other time that has compared was just before the great depression.
http://photos18.flickr.com/24012562_68e2121a3d.jpg
As far as interest payments and income tax revenue, interest payments have increased dramatically since 2003 but income tax revenue has stayed the same. The difference is a lot less than you think.
You should read up on inflation and why it exists in the first place. Without a central bank that prints money whenever politicians want it, inflation is virtually nonexistent, but that’s beside the point. If inflation were not taken into account (which it was) the original point would hardly change. The fact that you brought this up just shows you are reaching for strings. Or maybe I am just ignorant, I have never heard of inflation and I don’t take it into account. You are probably right; the theory of inflation is much too intricate for me to understand. After all, it is one of the more complicated economic phenomenons that occur. I wish it would just leave me alone. I hate inflation!!!
One more thing, if the government has revenues of only 916 billion dollars, then why is the federal budget 2 trillion+? Money out of thin air you say?

#20 A child inside of your body is not your body. If you think it is, please explain why. Does it help you live? Is it an organ? If you swallow a bug is that also your body? You shouldn’t so easily talk the destruction of life. I know a women has any right a man has,

You are right, corporations should be controlled to a certain extent (they should not be able to intrude on life liberty or the pursuit of happiness) but at the same time, the government does not need monstrous bureaucracies in order to tame them. Electing any of the democrats will either create larger bureaucracies, or in Hillary’s case, create corporations with more political influence. Ron Paul is one of a tiny minority in our government that does not deal with lobbyist. Corporations know it is impossible to buy him and they don’t even try.

When are we going to get to the point when the federal government screws up so much that we just go tell them to go take a hike? Why do we have to insist on informing bureaucracies that obviously never really get reformed? Fema does not need to be reformed; it needs to be gone. Give the money to the states and let them take care of there own disasters. They would be much better at it.

“But they could pay for good things like health insurance, child care, maternity leave, social security, etc. These are good things.”
None of these things are authorized under the constitution. Until the constitution is amended to include these, it is illegal for the federal government to manage them. Besides, if you want socialism, why live in the US? We are a free society, which also includes the freedom not to pay taxes for services that do not affect one.

The federal government is not a nanny. The stronger our centralized government becomes, the closer to tyranny we are. One may agree with the federal government on some issues at any given time, but to make the federal government stronger in order to advance ones ideals will only create a power that is strong enough to take those rights away later on. If you truly believe that a socialist society is ideal, increasing the power of the federal government will eventually be detrimental to your cause. Out of powerful central government come tyrants, and out of tyrants come societal failure.

Jmoon-

The last thing I'm going to say about the abortion thing: asking why a child does not have the right to live assumes that everyone agrees a fetus is a child. Many of us do not, at least in the early stages of pregnancy. This can of course be debated by logical people but I (and the majority of Americans) will not accept another's (usually based on religious ideology) interpretation of this over my own (which is why I never intend to force abortion on anyone).

Also, I know that the original Roe has since changed her position regarding abortion and could give a shit. I know a lot of people who would otherwise be intelligent if they didn't let the church do all of their thinking.

Libertarianism has a lot of merits. I disagree with many liberals on such things as safety belt laws, banning of foods, etc., as I believe people should have choices over their own minds and bodies. I like that part of libertarianism. A lot. But I dislike the complete lack of any governmental control. We need government to control corporations (which currently is obviously not working) and protect us (from each other via local police, or from outside the US via the military).

I am convinced that the government providing certain services, like healthcare, social security, ensuring pensions (obviously not on the current agenda) could benefit all of us to be more free, as the founding fathers intended.

It's reasonable to argue whether states or the fed would do a better job. But basic rights should be guaranteed to everyone, not just those that live in a blue state.

Eli (and others here who aren't in the Cult of Paul),
I'm a conservative, and I'm actually glad liberals are waking up to how absurd liberal (and conservative!) support of RP is. Not that I want the left to win, of course. But really, Ron Paul is a joke. It's beyond me why anyone with a brain on the left would even consider him. Actually, it's beyond me why anyone on the right would either, but I digress.

See how they come flocking when you post something criticizing their cult? It's as though you posted something in the LA Times criticizing Scientology. These cranks exhibit all the characteristics of brainwashed cult members, and spew the same nonsense that far-right cults have spewed for time eternal. I found the deranged rants from the old Heaven's Gate cult, and I posted it comparing it to Paultard rants. Did they disavow the fact that they're saying the same crap? NO. To the contrary--they're insistent that the HG rhetoric was correct (minus the need to find God by killing themselves, of course). I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that if Ron Paul asked them to become "martyrs" for his skewed view of the Constitution, they'd do it eagerly, though.

(By "skewed view," I mean his 18th Century application of it, as in issuing Letters of Marque to al-Qaeda--as though they're a bunch of pirates! with bounty hunters!--rather than a military response to 9/11, among many other absurdities.)

Hey Paultards, look! I'm a conservative Republican and I found you! Big Brother is watching and tracking you down for your apostasy! Run! Hide! You'll get an RFID chip forcibly installed in your head if they catch you!

LOL!

Ron Paul is a yutz. He has always been a yutz. And he always will be a yutz.

Case closed.

Dianna,I hope you abort every child that swells up. I have nothing against abortion. Abortion is good for the planet. I do not want top see it outlawed. Again, what I called retarded was you beliving the democratic party, the party of compromise, is going to protect abortion. You dumb bitch.

GJ,
Anyone who calls a woman 'you dumb bitch' to try to win an argument is a dumb bitch.

GJ you dumb bitch! Stop being such a dumb bitch in calling other people dumb bitches! What kind of dumb bitch would do that, you dumb bitch!

(wow, GJ, this feels REALLY good. Now I see why you do it! Amazing. I feel so powerful. Ok, the feeling is fading. Let me try it again. Nothing personal... ok, here goes:

GJ, you dumb bitch!!! (oh, god, I'm coming!!)

crazies eh? Keshmeshi...your figures are incorrect. ..|..

Keshmeshi and Jess B: Please cite your sources.

Anti-Ron-Paulers: Please dispense with the name-calling and debate the facts.

I don't believe I've called anyone names. Just been on the recieving end.

So I shouldn't vote dem because they are the party of compromise and won't protect my right to choice, therefore I should elect Paul who is completely against it?

Some leaps in logic, I think.

Even though this is slog, my apologies for the name calling Dianna. I am a dumb bitch. I am not a big fan of Paul, but I have watched the dems vote with, and compromise with, the Republicans again and again and again. I watched Gore hand Bush the throne with the deciding vote accepting the SC decision to end the recount, I watched Kerry accept a fixed election condemning the planet to 4moreyears of Bush, I could go on and on and on. I liked FDR, the new Deal, the Civil Rights movement, and the other benefits that came out of a strong Fed, but those days are gone. If Paul can end the war, this would trump the needs for red state abortions in my mind. As of now, our federal government is committing genocide in Iraq. Our economy is about to tank, our deficient is dragging the value of the dollar down, our infrastructure is third world, and both the Dems and the Repugs are pining to invade, and even Nuke Iran.

Dianna: Agreed and acknowledged. Not so for some others on your side of the argument here, though.

I'm all for paying taxes as a way of pooling our resources -- I don't want to have to contract with private companies for everything. But I have been convinced lately that most of the things I'm concerned with paying for via taxes are funded or should be funded at the state and local level, and that our federal income tax, which may not even be constitutional as currently implemented (not sure, but lots of people think so, and they present good arguments), goes mostly to pay for our war-making and to pay interest on the money the Federal Reserve (which is "about as federal as Federal Express") loans to us. I don't like this situation, and Ron Paul seems to be the only candidate who even acknowleges it, much less offers to do anything about it.

Dianna, I share your concerns with his stance on abortion. I'm staunchly pro-choice. (When my partner and I found out about the March for Women's Lives in DC in 2004, we booked flights immediately and demonstrated with around a million other people.) I'm also increasingly convinced that more decisions should be left up to individual states even if that means that some states make decisions that I don't like. But then I think, "whoah, if that was the case, the South would still be farming with slave labor". I don't know how to reconcile these feelings.

But regardless, I think we should be sticking to the Constitution. If it needs revision, then we should revise it, but we shouldn't simply ignore it.

We're living in a corporatocracy, and we're sliding quickly into fascism. Paul, Kucinich, and Gravel seem to be the only candidates who are likely to do anything about that situation.

Well, GJ, I appreciate your apology. And we can agree to disagree on the importance of specific certian issues.

You said

I liked FDR, the new Deal, the Civil Rights movement, and the other benefits that came out of a strong Fed.

So you admit that the federal government can work? It's just a matter of electing the right people.

Our economy is about to tank, our deficient is dragging the value of the dollar down, our infrastructure is third world, and both the Dems and the Repugs are pining to invade, and even Nuke Iran.

Agreed with you there. But I blame the Republicans for the economy and deficit. And I agree with you that going into Iran is a bad, bad idea. I'm hoping that the public won't accept it after Iraq.

And to Phil M:

But I have been convinced lately that most of the things I'm concerned with paying for via taxes are funded or should be funded at the state and local level, and that our federal income tax, which may not even be constitutional as currently implemented...goes mostly to pay for our war-making and to pay interest on the money the Federal Reserve (which is "about as federal as Federal Express") loans to us.

But regardless, I think we should be sticking to the Constitution. If it needs revision, then we should revise it, but we shouldn't simply ignore it.

Once again, this boils down to my argument of electing the right people to control the system.

As far as sticking to the constitution, the framers accepted that they couldn't anticipate everything and so left us a way to change it. Yes, they wanted limited government, only as much as necessary to secure the safety and liberty of the people. If we could get our priorities straightened out I think we could do ok with the fed.

And I've been pissed of at Dems too. But I also remember that after 9/11 anyone who disagreed with the President was called a traitor. This was the fault of ALL OF US. The public, the media, and our leaders. I won't let the Dems take all the blame.

But I have decided that if the Dems lose this election, I'm finding another party. There's no excuse for them losing after years of total incompetence.

I just can't get behind Paul on the deregulation thing...we started regulating companies because they had too much power. We need to go back to regulation. And things I said earlier, like health benefits and education, should be for all of us, not just those of us that are lucky or in wealthy states.

Also, I notice that Paul is conspicuously silent on the issue of drugs, which is where I agree with libertarians the most.

Hey guys, I'm continuing this discussion on the slog forum if anyone wants to join. My name on there is "kissydee."

Paul supports legalizing industrial hemp, rescheduling cannabis, and generally leaving matters of drugs to states and individuals.

See: On the Issues: Ron Paul on Drugs

...continued at The Stranger Forums: "Ron Paul For President?"

Progressive movements go to the democratic party to die. The problem with this country is not the repugs anymore, it is whom the progressives elect to office. A vote for a dem is a wasted vote if they do not do what they were elected to do, like end the war, not fund and even expand it. Wake up Dianna, please wake up.

Yes Phil, that's it. I didn't say much, just got the thread started (I didn't want to type out a bunch if no one was interested) Where did you find that info on Paul and drugs? A brief look at his website didn't find it.

And GJ: I agree that the problem is who progressives elect to office. And I'm pissed at the Dems for the war, too. The problem to me is that the Dems fight tooth and nail to get the "moderate" voters and thus lose all backbone.

I searched the hemp-talk archives for mentions of his name, and found a June, 2005, AP article, "Congress unlikely to act on medical marijuana bill" that quoted Paul saying, "I think support is strong, but people are still frightened a little bit by the politics of it. If you had a secret vote in Congress, I'll bet 80 percent would vote for it."

I then searched the Web for "ron paul" and "medical marijuana".

Thanks. Interesting that he didn't post those views on his website.

Dianna,
Here is a pretty good description of Ron Pauls position on Drugs.
http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul_Drugs.htm
His website is lacking in many areas besides the drug issue. There are, in my opinion, many issues that would help his campaign that are not present on the website. On the other hand, there are more self written articles on the internet by Ron Paul than any other politician.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html