don't know much about ron paul, but on the other hand, i do have mixed feelings about the role of the federal reserve.

What a package of delusional people and the leader is the one that would tear our country into pieces if he ever came to power.

seems to me our country is already coming apart. ----- on the other hand, sometimes a house can no longer be remodeled because the foundation is crumbling -- then it's time to start over, with a totally new house.

So, what would Ron Paul do to create jobs? Specific policy changes please, not platitudes. If he and CPAC don't know, contact me!

unsure who you are asking, but i should remind you that i am not a ron paul supporter. ----- as luck would have it, ronpal is my name.

I heard the best part of CPAC was when all the presidential candidates piled out of that tiny car and ran around waving to the crowd.

maybe in your county, but don't bet the ranch even on that-Vote Independent !

Amen to that FreeSociety, well said!

Ron Paul is the only Republican I will ever vote for!

Last Republican I voted for was Bush in 2000. I watched him and Cheney for the first few years and knew I wouldn't vote for them again. I voted for Obama because he was the lesser of the two evils by a LONG shot. I'm not saying I trust Obama, but the choice we had 2 years ago in the Republican party had me shaking my head and wondering if there even could have been a worse choice.

Now, if Ron Paul were to get the Republican nomination, as an independent, my vote would swing that way. Why? Because he is one of the few politicians who has the balls to say what this country needs.

I'd say about 90% of all politicians in office today sugar coat everything and don't work for us, but the corporations and banks that run this country.

I'd just have one question for anyone, who in the last 30 years in the White House hasn't sold us out?

Hence, that's why I'd give this guy a shot, it can't get any worse than what we've had for most of my adult life.

Wow! Talk about the careful selection of words to program the masses.

The selection of Paul – an isolationist, anti-war fiscal conservative who advocates for the dismantling of the Federal Reserve...

How about:

"The selection of Paul – Someone who believes in putting the interests of Americans first, not using US troops troops to police the world, "balanced budget" conservative who advocates for the dismantling of the Federal Reserve..."

Changes the picture, don't it? ~_o

If at first you don't succeed, then skydiving isn't for you.

BTW - For those interested in actually LEARNING what the fed is all about, check out "The Creature From Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve" by G. Edward Griffin. It is very comprehensive and understandable, with tons of references.

For those interested in "creating jobs"... Get creative and create them yourself! Quit relying on Big Brudda to fix your problems!

Writing Washington won't help.

He's dead...

Ron Paul ? Absolutely

As far as the privately owned FED RES goes they claim we owe more than 97% of the Trillions of National DEBT , yet they have never provided the actual CASH.The Cash/Debt was printed on US printing presses so how and why should we pay them.Get rid of the FED and their bogus DEBT.

Tom the Moderate one--There is this montra from the Ron Paul people---deregulate and business will grow. Personal feelings--since when can we trust corporate American not to take every possible advantage, moral or not? Paul wants to cut every single program and abolish many. While there is plenty of waste to cut--why are we so petrified and paranoid to cut that bloated sacred cow of a defense budget? #2China spends a small fraction of what we do and we spend more than all other countries combined.

Paul is no one that would consider electable. There is not one viable candidate on the right.

Why am I NOT surprised that Ron Paul got the vote twice now???

Because one thing you can ALWAYS count on with the extreme right is that if crazy doesn't fly the first time around they will always double down!

Free Society--what you are not saying in your fine writing is the fact that the entire Tea Party wants us to return back to the early 1800's from a social component within our government. Paul is unelectable because you'll never get society to go along with privatizing everything. A Smith defined this utopian society for business that lacked entirely of contribution to society. Corporate polluters would run even further from any law under Paul's ideology.

While I am in totally agreement with the need to end these foolish wars born of massive egos, I would not grant states rights like to some lunacy level. There needs to codified laws. I believe in a strong central government--not oppressing, whereas, Paul recommends next to no government.

During a real national emergency--he would be clueless.

What makes Ron Paul unelectable is what also creates visceral reaction from the programmed masses. Stop supporting Israel with trillions - with a t - dollars of American taxpayer money.

Don't get me wrong, Ron Paul is not picking on Israel. But they get included which is what gets Paul excluded. Why have 50,000 troops stationed in Germany? It's nice for Germany though, those men spend their pay there, and Germany has a strong economy. Why give billions to Egypt? To Saudi Arabia? To the war machine?

Do we ever vote on the war machine? No we never do directly, and Republicans and Democrats alike keep the machine fed. The man who would dismantle the machine is labeled unelectable, or fringe, even lunatic. Because, as we are all told, we need the machine in place in order to survive.

JFK wanted to dismantle of the Federal Reserve too and look what happened to him. When JFK was shot Jackie said those Dam bankers, so she thought the bankers were behind the assassination.

Ron Paul is a true anti-establishment candidate so will always be minimized by the establishment media. Anyone who thinks "the fed" is some sort of beloved governmental financial institution NEEDS to watch "The Money Masters" which someone has uploaded to youtube. The Fed is a banking cartel that runs our economy pure and simple. They are not there for "us" but for themselves. It's time to wake up America

Is Ron Paul right on everything? I don't think so, but I could easily say the same for the Democratic and the Republican points of view. No one has it all right. However, he is quite correct on a number of issues.

To call Ron Paul an isolationist is utterly ridiculous. He simply does not believe that we are the cops of the world. We have no business getting involved in every altercation around the globe. We're killing thousands of our own, hundreds of thousands elsewhere and bankrupting our nation. He is right, and it would serve us well to remember that when Dems and Repubs were supporting Afghanistan and Iraq, Ron Paul was telling them they were wrong.

As far as the Federal Reserve Bank, well, does anyone really know what they're doing? Bernanke fights every attempt to bring some transparency to what is going on in this secret club. Again, I ask, does anyone really know what these guys do?

When Dems are in power, Repubs don't trust government. When Repubs are in power, Dems don't trust government. Am I missing something here? At just about any time, half the nation doesn't trust the government, but we're giving the Fed a free pass. Ron Paul is right. Let them do their job, but dammit, tell us what it is they're doing.

He may not be the man to run this country, but he definitely has something of value to share with us.

If you don't mind the observation, I think "to create jobs" is sort of a meaningless qualifier, since pretty much everyone in government thinks that what they're doing creates jobs. The President claims the healthcare bill will create jobs; the Republican House passed a "repeal the job-killing healthcare act" bill, to create jobs. So to answer the simpler question "what would Ron Paul do?", realize that Ron Paul maintains a very literal interpretation of our Constitution's 10th Amendment. More specifically, he believes Congress is not authorized to pass laws that exceed the 18 "powers" explicitly listed in Article 1, Section 8. Since "providing for the medical insurance of citizens" (to give just one example) is not listed, he would seek to repeal not only the recent healthcare bill but also Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, etc. Certainly, domestic services under a Ron Paul presidency would shrink drastically. Furthermore, though he believes that the Congress has a right to maintain a military and wage war on other countries, he considers essentially all of our foreign interventions since World War II wasteful and inflammatory; so he would seek to end the war in Afghanistan and remove our troops from most of the 130 countries in which they are currently stationed.

The result of all this cost-cutting would be such a tiny federal budget that government could easily cut all personal and corporate taxes to zero (i.e., eliminate the IRS) and rely solely on excise taxes and the like, as it did until 1913. Whether Paul hopes in fact eliminate the IRS or only to shrink it and cut taxes in other ways (tariffs, etc.) too, hopefully the mere possibility of doing so provides a sense of scale. Libertarian-minded people like Ron Paul argue that cutting trillions of dollars in taxes, wherever they come from, would leave businesses with so much more hiring capital and individuals with so much more spending money that, yes, the private sector would create jobs; and any remaining poverty could be alleviated by states, local communities, and private charities.

You wanted specifics, so I hope that helps.

Full disclosure: I am hardly a Constitutional lawyer, but I agree with his interpretation of the 10th Amendment, in that I see strong evidence its authors believed in a similarly tiny federal government. While I also tend to believe in small government, though, I do not consider every single federal program that oversteps Article 1, Section 8 to be "job-killing" (as Paul pretty much does), so out of pure legal pickiness, I feel a Constitutional amendment should be passed to expand that list of delegated powers.

For argument sake, lets say that he was selected and did become president, what then America?

Do we pull out of the UN?

Yes! Why do we have to send our troups to die for any country, especially by putting them under the control of a non US entity!

Do we eliminate the Federal Reserve?

Of course! It refuses to even tell us what it does! It prints money (rather puts a zero here and there electronically) and devalues you're social security, unemployment, pay checks, savings plan and private retirement funds every time it does this.. Are you happy losing money everyday to these idiots!

Do we back our money with gold only?

It doesn't matter if its gold, silver, oil or any object. So long as it is backed by SOMETHING! instead of nothing..

Do we cancel all alliances with our allies?

He never said we should do that! Where would you get that impression. We can have alliances but we shouldn't be stationing our troups in their countries except in extreme situations

Do we build a fence around the entire country?

Um... He's for open borders, get a clue..

The thing that gets me the most is Ron Paul is mostly for democratic ideals. NO WAR! NO TORTURE! NO FASHISM! A balanced budget, bill clinton was the only modern president that did that, well for one year. Rights, you know all of them. The ACLU hippies love this guy. It seems to me democrats don't remember what they support anymore and are follwing the republicans in making fashism the key role of the federal government.

sandt Your true colors are bleeding out, just like pharobama'sdid. Strong central government, restricted states rights. It is not your right or anyone else's, to tell any person how to spend the money they have worked for. If this is the type life you enjoy, just ease on over to the mid-east, asia, africa, oh! south america is close. You just don't learn life's lessons in a book. Give you belongings away and go live with the poor somewhere, and work for your keep. Your tune will change. cuba, colombia, mexico, venzuala, beautiful weather there. north korea, red china, heard red china was a little crowded though, in the towns. The country side is less populated, but they frown on you moving about, hard to keep up with you and what your doing. But don't let that deter you, it would be a new adventure. If you go in through the north border, get the sun in your eyes and keep walking in that direction. The south is warmer than the northern section. Mongolia is tuff in the winter. Have a good time. Carry your laptop and keep in touch, let us here in the sunny south know how your doing.

So, what would Ron Paul do to create jobs?

he would let the market create the jobs. get rid of the fed and its price fixing of setting the interest rate artificially. bring back the gold standard and make our currency sound. eliminate the federal income tax. bring our troops home from occupying foreign countries in spite of our constitution and the principles of our founding fathers, saving us a trillion dollars a year. i know its a long way for him to be president. this country is likely to elect Sh!t Romney or Dingbat Palin. but is is a refreshing bit of news to see Ron Paul in the headlines winning this poll... Ron Paul 2012 !!!

95% of you do not read more then the D or the R behind the name. Have any of you read what Paul actually stands for? He has values that both democrats stand for and other they hate. The same goes for the republicans. For that he is nearly unelectable because he doesn't go with the establishment. But those who actually care about politics and research the people they are going to vote for do understand and that is the part of the country that actually matters. I just hope those few informed people can save this country from the rest of you.

sandtrich...I agree with you that defense could be pared down to an extent. But the big picture is the the military does create and is responsible for thousands, if not millions of jobs, whether directly or indirectly. Look no further to what happens to the surrounding area after a base closes down. Here in Phoenix, we have 2 bases, Luke AFB and Williams AFB on the outskirts, that pump hundreds of millions into our economy.

I do believe a strong military is essential to our well-being as a country.

While I have mixed feelings with our business in the Middle East. I do know I would rather be fighting the jihad on their soil than ours. It is inching closer to us as we speak as law enforcement and border patrol has found Korans in the underground tunnels. If our porous borders are that easy for any Mexican to cross, imagine what the terrorists can do. I do not believe the Islamic Jihad will just stop if we simply leave the Middle East.

sandtrich...I am not sure the founding fathers had oppressive and strong central government in mind. I believe they had the idea of strong states rights to govern their own affairs. The federal government was simply there to protect the rights of the states and the country as a whole with a military. If someone didnt like the direction of their state's government, they could then move to one that they approved of. Too many blanket policies, such as the Department of Education, that tries to set rules forall stats as one rather than allow states to set their own standards.

I side with the libertarians when it comes to the role of federal and state governments.

What both right and left want to keep denying is that Ron Paul is on Americas side. Unfortunately, both right and left don't want a uniter. They always want a divider. They are all about special interists - their own special interests and screw everyone else.

I agree Bob. I will also say though that the TEA Party movement started as a true libertarian movement and then it was skewed by both sides to be seen as an ultra conservative movement. I do not believe that the foundation of the TEA party cares if you are a liberal or a democrat or a republican or a conservative, as long as you are fiscally conservative and for a smaller more efficient government.

I don't know a whole lot about Ron Paul other than he is totally against illegal immigration and would do everything within the law to stop it. That is what I will be voting for in my candidate. Unlike Obama who insists on suing one of our states merely because they want to enforce the law. We cannot have another Obama term!

Urall, that's a rather naive assessment of the Tea Parties. The reason Americans think they're the ultra-conservative base of the Republican party is because they clearly ARE.

I'd like to point something out that has not been discussed. Yes, Ron is for cutting entitlements BUT..... Those on Social Security would not have a cut in benefits. His plan is to phase it out over time, not drop the axe on day one. Those on welfare would be taken care of as well but as the economy improves they would need to become active participants. Charity would become something provided by family, friends, community and the kindness of strangers as this is not a role government should have ever played.

Ron also proposes changes to the trade agreements (NAFTA, CAFTA, etc.) to make them fair to US workers. This would help to bring jobs back to the US manufacturing sector. The creation of jobs is up to the private sector. The only thing government can do make an environment conducive for job creation like stop changing the rules. Nothing kills job creation like unknown variables.

Anyone that has not read Ron's books I encourage you to do so. There is plenty of time to become educated.

For those that think he's a nut I say you are a media parrot, mechanically repeating the sound bites without a shred of fact to back your comments. It truly shows a failure in ability to do research and analysis.

Interesting results. One thing I find interesting is in the 2008 election McCain could not energize the youth also in the midterm 2010 election the youth really were not the driving force for Republican votes. He always fell off in that department. Ron Paul seems to energize the youth Republican voting block. Maybe he isn't a first choice for President maybe he is, but ultimately it sounds like the Republicans need his name on the ticket as Pres or VP to energize they younger voting block.

Ultimately though who ever is elected as President will not be able to do a thing without getting a Senate and House majority that is also aligned with their plans. Cutting off foreign aid and non-intervention in foreign affairs sounds great and makes a great talking point, but when Human rights are trampled on and the media puts it on every TV in the US it is easy to blame the President for not doing anything.

as to the "granting of state rights" that was done in the constitution. fed govt was to be a mediator anddeal with interstate issues only. it has grown beyond its need. and we need to cut it back a lot.

Really congress is a mess, democrats pulling one way one term, republicans another way the next term. That's why we have conflicting laws and humungous debt.

If you limit the federal government then you can live and form a democratic utopia in any single state and a republican utopia in another and a libertarian in another. Unfortunatly neither side seems to understand why the founders made it this way nor how perfect it is in reality. The only thing we all have to agree on is the absolute rights of the individual within the united states regardless of the state they are actually in. That concept scares the crap out of both sides. The republicans would have to accept war protesters, westbough church guys, gays, porn, not having god thrown in your face by your government, the democrats would have to accept guns and um.. well guns... I cannot think of anything else they would have to accept.. Gitmo would be done for, foreign wars would be done for, the federal government taxes would be cut to probably less than $1T and states would instead collect the taxes the feds take, with that they would be able to make their own social security system, health care system, high speed rail or no, highways or no, whatever.. In general that sounds like a better way for all of us to get along.. Sure if you live in montana you might feel the need to move to nyc or visa versa bu..

that's the american dream, ultimate choice, ultimate control over your own life!

Is the newly elected Weeper of the House positively 'glowing' this morning on MTP?

Anyone know what the over/under is as to whether or not he'll shed one of his 'trademark' tears?

Buffalo bob, your interpretation of the constitution is in line with the federalist doctrine and was correct until 1819 when the Supreme court ruled otherwise.

An excerpt from the supreme Court decision of 1819, McCulloch v. Maryland.

This constitution considers the people of the several states as one body corporate, and is intended as an original compact; it will therefore dissolve all contracts which may be inconsistent with it. This not only results from its nature, but is expressly declared in the 6th article of it. The design of the constitution is expressed in the preamble, to be, “in order to form a more perfect union, to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and posterity.” These are the ends this government is to accomplish, and for which it is invested with certain powers; among these is the power “to make all laws which are necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers and all other powers vested by this constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.” It is a rule in construing a law to consider the objects the legislature had in view in passing it, and to give it such an explanation as to promote their intention. The same rule will apply in explaining a constitution. The great objects then are declared in this preamble in general and indefinite terms to be to provide for the common welfare, and an express power being vested in the legislature to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution all the powers vested in the general government. The inference is natural that the legislature will have an authority to make all laws which they shall judge necessary for the common safety, and to promote the general welfare. This amounts to a power to make laws at discretion. No terms can be found more indefinite than these, and it is obvious, that the legislature alone must judge what laws are proper and necessary for the purpose. It may be said, that this way of explaining the constitution, is torturing and making it speak what it never intended. This is far from my intention, and I shall not even insist upon this implied power, but join issue with those who say we are to collect the idea of the powers given from the express words of the clauses granting them; and it will not be difficult to show that the same authority is expressly given which is supposed to be implied in the foregoing paragraphs.

As you can see, it has been established law since 1819 that the Federal Government can, shall and should override the laws, establishments and purposes of the individual states when it comes to the people of those states.

a strong libertarian streak of many of the annual conference’s attendees

Weren't they of a strong Tea Party streak just a few moths ago? Or does this mean Ron Paul is really a teapublican and not a libertarian as he says?

X2 to David Walker's comment. I'd also like to add that Ron Paul is the only potential major party candidate to have been consistently against both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. I would not give most repub candidates a first thought, let alone a second, but Ron Paul brings valuable contributions to a national debate about our role in the world.

whoever wrote this article is completely ignorant.

he is not an isolationist.....he is a non interventionist...big difference.

he is the only one who could bring about the needed change in this country. He would bring much needed freedom to this country. Individualism and freedom is the answer people

freedom unites it does not divide.

This discussion thread makes me laugh......the article is about a STRAW POLL, not reality. And here we go with the negative comments about a man, what party will win should Ron Paul run, ad nauseum, etc.

It isn't even the campaign season yet folks.....a little early for the libbies to already pick the result for the GOP?

And Feisty, I can't imagine you ever surprised since you already have formulated an opinion....on everything! Pleas keep your insignificant comments comming - they are funny. And after reading my comment, watch your attack speech for the administrator may censor you for a week.

safecracker, that's the whole purpose of the straw poll.. to foster discussion & conjuecture about the "result of the GOP"... not sure why you think it's a "libbies" initiated topic, what with the poll coming out of CPAC.

Anywho, while I agree with some of what I've heard from Paul, I also don't think he'd ever get enough partners in the Congress to move any significant changes through, so it would really be an exercise in idealism, with little/no net changes coming at the end of his term.

SactoJD, I'm sorry but discussion & conjuecture this early in the "run-for-president" thought process is not worth the time to formulate an opinion. There are too many days, too little to learn about a candidate, with too little time to listen to the condemnations by persons on this thread. I've read several from the left-leaners who condemn anyone not associated with their belief system.

Ron Paul won't make it to the dance, neither will Sarah Palin. Mitt R. will be condemned by the Mass. Health Care program administered by the liberal legislature but blamed on him.....

So far, there is not a viable candidate in the "straw poll". Now, that is not to mean that viable possibles are out there, not committed as yet. It will be interesting to see the outcome of the primary on both sides. The focus from this site is on the GOP candidate, but it should be interesting to see which Democrat will oppose the current leader of the administration during their primary.

Would your opinion be that Obama is doing so well that he will be unopposed?

safecracker

I agree with you that the Republican nominee was not featured in the straw poll.

Pres O will have an opponent who has yet to completely surface above the field, but I think we will have a better idea by summer.

Most of the announced or almost announced candidates will not be invited to the big dance by the Republican party.

I've read several from the left-leaners who condemn anyone not associated with their belief system.

You continuously bash libbies / lefties / etc. but say nothing of the right wing, do you think they are perfect or something?

China will be thrilled. I can imagine that a newly paranoid Russia and always psychotic Iran will be equally thrilled. America will shrink from the world stage like it tried in the 1930s. Worked real well then, too. America will not be destroyed by its enemies, but rather by its own foolishness. With both father and son hard at work, maybe they can resurrect the 1800s, America's robber baron period.Yup. Sounds great.

With his commodities backed currency plan, the robber baron thing isn't too far from the truth.

As a young, typically democratic voter, I am excited for Ron Paul's campaign. It excites me to see how educated his base of supporters are. I just finished reading his books "End the Fed" and "The Revolution," which have forever changed my political views. In the past, I've voted for a president that I've felt to be most trustworthily. If I didn't think either candidate was trustworthy, I would vote against the one that I thought worse of - as was the case with Bush vs. Gore and Bush vs. Kerry where I voted more so against Bush then for his competitors. Bottom-line, I think I was like many Americans in that my vote wasn't given to a candidate on the basis of the "issues". Ron Paul is changing this. His popularity is gained through simple education. His ideas are hitting the hearts of many "young" voters. He has me thinking of the issues and energizing me to stand up and pass the word. His books highlight his true beliefs, putting them on the table so that everyone can see where exactly he stands. The way he explained what is wrong with government’s foreign aid policy and when highlighted the levels of government corruption infuriated me so much that I wanted to punch the nearest wall. It makes me proud to see my friends get so emotionally charged about the constitution and future of our government and our country. Recent examples of republicans have been a disgrace to all who hold true to republican ideas. I cannot even imagine why true republicans continued to support Bush unless it was out of mere loyalty to the party. Dragging us into Iraq was the most dishonest event in politics since the Gulf of Tonkin lie. I agree previous comments that Paul's fate would be the same as JFK's, but maybe the US would stand up and contest the tyrannical powers that have become acceptable in this "free" nation. Maybe if he was assassinated, we the people would immediately see through the lies. I hope I speak for my age group (25-30) by saying that I do not trust the government, Rep or Dem. Though Paul runs under the republican caucus, he is not the typical corrupt politician that we the people have elected time and time again. He has stood, many times alone, against his party for what he and his constituent’s believe. He detests special interest groups, corruption, and foreign wars, and has the courage to stand up on issues that are vitally important to future of America. These include: eliminating our imperialistic international military commitment, limiting the powers of and increasing the transparency of the Federal Reserve, decreasing all government spending much of which directly benefits pro-military organization, oil tycoons, real estate elites, and powerful bank elites, and honestly increasing the liberties of all Americans while stopping organizations from enforcing their moral beliefs onto the masses. He addresses issues which most politicians are too scared to do for fear of their well-being, both politically and physically. The day is near that a candidate will rise that represents true "change." He is patron for the liberties of all Americans. He is against the corrupt elitists that have made millions off the war, and the financial bubbles that have burst resulting in privatized gains, while the tax payers have absorbed their losses. I don't agree with some of his fears, particularly with the possibility of hyperinflation, but his foreign policy, fiscal policies, and defense policies are truly educated and enlightened. The revolution is on its way. There is a space for you aboard the train if you are willing to challenge your current beliefs. All I ask is for you to educate yourself. After all, self-education cannot lie. If you don’t agree, so be it. At least your vote will be on your beliefs next election as will mine. Pick up his books, and consider what Paul has to say. True "change" is scary, but I’m ready!

It's interesting that the people who are against Ron Paul apparently know nothing about him. Most of the negative comments listed above are based on total fabrications. If false propaganda is the only thing the media and the left can fight with, then the Paul campaign has a very good chance. Some of you may disagree with me, but you need to check your facts and quit listening to the party line statements like this in the media;

Paul raised eye-popping sums on the web during his 2008 presidential run but almost certainly lacks the campaign organization and wide appeal with GOP primary voters to be a serious contender to win the nomination.

Translation; The media controlled by the Powers that Be do not like Ron Paul for obvious reasons, therefore they would like everyone to believe that he doesn't stand a chance. They also have some Kool Aid for you if you are thirsty.

It's also very interesting that one of the most highly voted posts on this thread was collapsed. Have a look for yourself if you are wondering. What ever happened to Freedom of Speech?

He is a libertarian, that in and of its self is enough to exclude him from being President, whether you like him or not. His views are shared by only a few and they are not consistant with our current form of government.

I always find statements like yours interesting. You think some should be excluded because of their views. So forget about letting people vote, let's just exclude someone because you disagree with them. Is this policy consistent with our new form of government? Then there's not much point in voting.

You may be right that he might be a Libertarian, but how does that really "exclude him from being President"? Lying should exclude a candidate from being President, but that seems like a prerequisite for just about any political job these days. He also doesn't sleep with interns, post half naked pictures of himself on Craigslist or cruise airport men's rooms late at night. Maybe this disqualifies him also.

And you're wrong, there's more than just a few who support him. I do agree with one thing you said; he's not consistant with our current government, when you consider that our current government is doing many things that are illegal and totally against our Constitution.

Trump may be right that Ron Paul couldn't win, but it wasn't politic to say so, it certainly didn't endear him to anyone there. But come to think of it, The Donald couldn't win either, and I dare say has less chance than Ron Paul in the primary or general elections.

I'm an independent who will be voting for President Obama. The longer time goes on it is apparent to me that Paul (either one), Romeny, Huckabee and really that's pretty much it, are all on the same old page. Unfortunately, almost nothing that is presented is new, original or is a realistic plan of action for the future of the US. I base my decision on the fact that you need vision. You need a way forward. You need to take into consideration all Americans not just those "that count". Threatening shutting down the government, ignoring the fact that we are currently paying for the 50,000,000+ emergency room healthcare program for those people who cannot or will not pay for healthcare, a morbid sense of retaining an unaffordable Military complex while addressing the deficit by shutting down everything. I absolutely detest hearing "taking the country back". That really gets under my skin? From whom? There are tough times now and ahead. No quick fix. No magic pill. I agree with the President on education, development of new industries, healthcare. I also want to address government waste but only at a moderate pace. Less governmental regulation where it makes sense. Not blatantly across the board. I absolutely am for separation of church and state as well as equality for all Americans. I believe that we are but one country amongst many. I recognize the dynamics of other countries and do not wish to always offer "Do this or else" or Send in the Marines mentality. I want to get away from the two never ending and unpaid for wars. I want a serious discussion of what to do about immigration. So, for these other reasons or until I hear something of sustance from the other party that includes everyone, I'll be voting for the President.

John B from Des Moines has got it exactly right. If you missed his early comment, and want to have a good chuckle, find it and read it.

erichjohn..am wondering why you think companies would create more jobs if their tax were gone or any of Pauls ideas used for the benefit of big business ? So far...it seems as though big business and wall street in general are doing well with millions in the bank...but very little new hires coming from it...for all our governements claims on hireings...as many are still being laid off as hired..so very little gain if any..there are I am sure many cuts that need to be made because of the mismanagement of our elected so far starting with their own pay scales. What bothersz me is this...no matter what Paul claims..he has to deal with a congress that has its own agends..until those peope are removed and new people, elected...he would be just as Obama is now..wanting good things and getting nothing in return.

He's the perfect sacrifice to the Obama landslide.

and how do you expect a landslide to occur without significant support from the independent voters ?? ----- do you honestly believe obama will get the same support he had in 2008 ?? --- try again....

Landslide? I doubt it.

We saw evidence of how well he is thought of by the electorate in November.

Want some interesting reading? Try this

http://nymag.com/news/politics/70829/index2.html

Pay particular attention to the part where he opined that he, himself, would make a good chief of staff. And Valerie Jarret's commenting to Obama that he'd never had a real job.

There is also the fact that, for two years, not one cabinet head ever got a call from Obama.

Guess he knows everything.

So far, I guess he has wrapped up the truthers vote, the middle- aged women who think they are 10 years old vote, and the if Obama tells me it's sunny, I'll drown in the flood before I'll believe it's raining vote.

That's it.

Obama will win GUARANTEED. Just look at the electoral map. Obama could afford to lose Florida,Virginia, North Carolina and Colorodo and STILL win by simply winning Ohio and/or winning New Mexico and Nevada. BTW Both Colorodo and Nevada went blue in the mid terms during a big republican year. If i was a betting man (and i am) id put a thousand bucks that Obama wins again.

Plus, no matter how much you republicans deny it. The economy IS getting better by the day.. Each day better news come it. Falling jobless claims, surging consumer confidence, soaring stock market, falling unemployment rate. FACT the economy is getting stronger and stronger and by this time next year unemployment rate will be 8% or lower.

Oh and Obama is over 50% approval rating right now, at this same point Clinton was at a dismal 40% approval rating and Reagan was at a 37% approval rating.

chris ---- none of that will matter to the independent voters in 2012. ---- also, look for the republicans to have a net gain of at least two senate seats.

Don't confuse them with facts, Chrisgamer.

chris ---- none of that will matter to the independent voters in 2012.

Run a candidate like Ron Paul and it will!

Independent voters are fickle and change on a dime. I guarantee Obama will win. again its all about the electoral map, all he has to do is win all the Kerry states plus one other state and hes got it in the bag. The business cycle is on Obama's side. Unemployment rate will be close to 7% by election day 2012. At this same point in Reagan's presidency unemployment rate was much higher at 10.2% and on election day 1984 it was 7.4%, right now its at 9%

Na, he won it, and a pile of straw is about the only thing he is qualified to be president over.

chris, then perhaps we should figure out a way to make a little wager --- i could use the extra money.

I doubt a "landslide", but the conservative malcontents will definitely lose in 2012 - given the general voter apathy in 2010 and the fact that pretty much the only ones who showed up to vote were republicants, that will figure less than zero in 2012. The fact is - the last time a Republican was in the White House and Republicants held Congress the same malcontents destroyed our country and took surpluses and a national debt that was to retire by 2014 into almost a great depression. Going into the voting booth independants might not be enthusiastically supportive of Obama but thy're probably not going to shoot themselves in the head by voting for a right-wing, nut-job Republicant @!$%#servative.

you are forgetting that every so often, independent voters don't so much vote for someone, as they do vote against someone. ----- that happened in 2008 when the independents voted against mccain, and it will happen again in 2012 when they vote against obama. ----- it won't even matter which candidate wins the nomination for the republicans, but anyway, it will not be ron paul.

and it will happen again in 2012 when they vote against obama.

I wouldn't count on it!

Two years of watching the tea baggers in Congress doing everything but what they were elected to do with have the Independents RUNNING back to the Democratic party! ;o)

BTW: Where ARE the J O B S?

Voting against someone and thereby electing someone from a party completely outside the MAINSTREAM isn't an option for an Independent holding on to his or her marbles. Obama is far from perfect but the ones on the right make Pee Wee Herman look like a viable Presidential contender. Sorry Pee Wee, that was probably insulting.

feisty ---- as an independent, i can safely say that at least one indepndent will not vote for obama.

i can safely say that at least one indepndent will not vote for obama.

Well okay then - good for you!

Thankfully, you get one vote and you don't speak for all independents! ;o)

Next...

no, but i do belong to an organization of independent voters ---- frankly, you can believe what you wish, but that will not make it happen. ---- independent voters are responsible for the winner in all elections, and 2012 will not be any different. ---- btw, we voted against mccain in 2008.

Chrisgamer,

I have been known to place a wager on the ponies and Obama is a huge favorite but a tough wager. The moneyline is -135 with the current odds being 4-5 Palin next at 10-1 followed by Romney 12-1 Biden 15-1 Clinton 15-1. It's early but at the same time the odds were much higher on Bush or Clinton. Strange odds on House and Senate; odds have gone from GOP 2-5 to even money Senate has goe from 3-5 GOP to 4-5 Dem. all current trending is Dem. They won't cover an exacta or trifecta but will take a parlay.

JKH

Palin/Bachmann TP ticket splits the REPUB vote. Obama in a LANDSLIDE.

Paul-977599

Palin/Bachmann TP ticket splits the REPUB vote. Obama in a LANDSLIDE.

That would be a beautiful ticket.

no joe, no bo, nj

Landslide? I doubt it.

Your West Wing, Season II link reads like fiction. I prefer Lawrence O'Donald to write about the West Wing.

Ron Paul, the original Tea Bagger are you kidding? He wants Americans to use gold and silver as currency. The guy is nuts. You’ll need a wheel barrel to go shopping.
No foreign aid, OMG, other countries gave aid to US the richest country on the planet after 9/11 and Katrina.

Dr Jo,

Since Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Feds is appointed by the President and approved by the Senate, wouldn’t Ron Paul have a problem there?

The creation of the Federal Reserve System was due to the Panic of 1907 during a time of economic recession. Wouldn’t this be counterproductice? Also isn’t it true the Federal Reserve system is owned by a handful of billionares; excluding rhe Koch Brothers?

I mean I don’t know I read this once . I could use your knowledge and economic expertise. Don’t take advantage of this question by bashing or blaming the President in your answer please.

I'll await your answers, Dr Jo, if you're still online.

Thank you in advance

fiesty - who is the one that promised jobs? Obama did, and nothing has changed as far as the economy is concerned. The FDIC is giving away money to banks, the IRS is taxing more people who can't afford it, Obama is trying to get things passed on executive orders and bypass the house and senate. More and more Dems are saying that voting for Obama was a mistake. What more reason do you want NOT to re-elect Obama?

I don't care who runs against Obama they are getting my vote.

Bev, I am happy to answer your question about the Federal Reserve.

I'll start with the history:

The wisdom, or lack thereof, of a central banking system was a source of debate from our founding. Alexander Hamilton, you may remember from your history classes, was one proponent. The shape of the argument was not just whether a central bank was needed, but it's form and function.

There was a lot of debate, that led to a lot of dithering, with subsequent crashes and panics. The worst of these in 1907, finally got Congress off the dime.

They spent six years crafting a central banking system that would have optimal function, with minimal political implications for the system.

The system works this way: those charged with the actual running of our money and banking system is the Board of Governors of the Fed. The seven members of this Board are Presidential appointees who are confirmed by Congress. They serve 14 year terms, staggered so that one member can be replaced every two years. The appointment system was instituted to insulate monetary policy from politics; to that end, no appointee may be replaced before the end of his or her 14 year term.

While the Board of Governors has the general supervision and control over the money and banking system in this country, they are assisted in this by two separate bodies: the Federal Open Market Committee, and the Federal Advisory Council.

There are 12 Federal Reserve Banks in the country. The presidents of five of those, with the seven governors of the Board, make up the Federal Open Market Committee. This committee sets the entire Federal Reserve system's policy in regard to the purchase and sale of government bonds in the open market. These decisions are the Fed's greatest tool to affect the money supply.

The Federal Advisory Council is comprised of 12 CommercialBankers, each of whom is chosen by one of the presidents of the 12 Federal Reserve banks. The purpose of the Council is to advise the Fed of the impacts and implications of their monetary policy decisions on the market- but, the key word in the title is "Advisory". Neither the Board of Governors nor the Federal Open Market Committee are bound by their advice.

As you can see, congress has done the best it could to set up an independent, politically immune system for our central bank. It is, therefore, impossible for any one or two people to "own" the Federal Reserve. Only those who are ignorant of the make up and workings of the Fed would make such an allegation.

I hope that this information is helpful, and allays your fears about the powers of one or two people to influence our money and banking system.

Sorry, Bev, I reread what I had posted, and realized that I had left out an important piece of information for you:

The members of the Federal Advisory Council, (commercial bankers chosen by the twelve presidents of the Federal Reserve Banks) are limited to three, one year terms. The length is easily understood- if an appointed member is singularly unhelpful, or otherwise unsuited for the job, he or she can be replaced pretty quickly.

The reason for the three term limit is also pretty easy to understand- it prevents any one individual from having the ear of any one of the Board of Governors for too long.

All of this underscores the impossibility of one or a handful of "billionaires" from influencing decisions of the Fed.

Not to say that I agree with them all- far from it- but it is still a pretty solid system.

no joe, no bo, nj

Sorry, Bev, I reread what I had posted, and realized that I had left out an important piece of information for you:

Thank you Jo

With the NYSE now belonging to Germany it does make one wonder.

Paper currency according to this author is nothing more than a symbol. This brings me to a concept the gold bullion in Fort Knox which I never understood. If Ron Paul wants to use silver and gold to replace the dollar, I think it is about of the nuttiest ideas on earth, I'm aware the the Feds lower and raise interest rates; but the idea of getting rid of them is just counterproductive to me since the treasury prints the money.

In a Travel feature in The Washington Post, March 27, 1983, "Follow The Rich to Jekyll Island", Roy Hoopes writes:

"In 1910, when Aldrich and four financial experts wanted a place to meet in secret to reform the country’s banking system, they faked a hunting trip to Jekyll and for 10 days holed up in the Clubhouse, where they made plans for what eventually would become the Federal Reserve Bank."

Page 43 last paragraph

The composition of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors and the Federal Reserve Advisory Council, from its initial membership to the present day, shows links to the Jekyll Island conference and the London banking community which offers incontrovertible evidence, acceptable in any court of law, that there was a plan to gain control of the money and credit of the people of the United States, and to use it for the profit of the architects. Old Jekyll Island hands were Frank Vanderlip, president of the National City Bank, which bought a large portion of the shares of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York in 1914; Paul Warburg of Kuhn, Loeb Company; Henry P. Davison, J.P. Morgan’s righthand man, and director of the First National Bank of New York and the National Bank of Commerce, which took a large portion of Federal Reserve Bank of New York stock; and Benjamin Strong, also known as a Morgan lieutenant,

Page 47 last paragraph

The House of Rothschild

What John Moody did not know, or did not tell his readers, was that the most powerful men in the United States were themselves answerable to another power, a foreign power, and a power which had been steadfastly seeking to extend its control over the young republic of the United States since its very inception. This power was the financial power of England, centered in the London Branch of the House of Rothschild. The fact was that in 1910, the United States was for all practical purposes being ruled ^{from England, and so it is today. The ten largest bank holding companies in the United States are firmly in the hands of certain banking houses, all of which have branches in London. They are J.P. Morgan Company, Brown Brothers Harriman, Warburg, Kuhn Loeb and J. Henry Schroder. All of them maintain close relationships with the House of Rothschild, principally through the Rothschild control of international money markets through its manipulation of the price of gold. Each day, the world price of gold is set in the London office of N.M. Rothschild and Company.}

^{Although these firms are ostensibly American firms, which merely maintain branches in London, the fact is that these banking houses actually take their direction from London.}

^{page 48 1st paragraph}

In recent years, key posts such as Secretary of Defense have been held by Robert Lovett, partner of Brown Brothers Harriman, and Thomas S. Gates, partner of Drexel and Company, a J.P. Morgan subsidiary firm. The present Vice President, George Bush, is the son of Prescott Bush, a partner of Brown Brothers Harriman, for many years the senator from Connecticut, and the financial organizer of Columbia Broadcasting System of which he also was a director for many years.

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/reserve.htm

Paper currency according to this author is nothing more than a symbol. This brings me to a concept the gold bullion in Fort Knox which I never understood. If Ron Paul wants to use silver and gold to replace the dollar, I think it is about of the nuttiest ideas on earth, I'm aware the the Feds lower and raise interest rates; but the idea of getting rid of them is just counterproductive to me since the treasury prints the money.

This means something is fishy.

he isnt suggesting we carry around gold bars.

just that we have money that is backed by gold.....its really quite simple...instead of just printing more and more money that is worthless...depreciating our dollar......that we should only priint money in the amount of gold we have.

our dollar would be stronger.

The monetary system under the Federal Reserve is far more complicated than just backing or no backing. Most of our money doesn't actually exist in the real world, and it is based on debt and interest. Most people can't wrap their head around their idea of money.

exactly and its destroying us...its a system with no future. We need a money system that has the backing of hard currency.

its the only way. We shouldnt have a system based on debt and devaluatuion.

Bev, those who advocate a return to the gold standard are, in my mind, so off base that it is hard for me to take them seriously. However, I will try to explain my opposition to you. You may agree or disagree, this is, after all, my opinion:

Gold is, first and foremost, a COMMODITY. As such, it is subject to the same rules as every other commodity. When itmis in high demand, the price goes up- when demand slips, or the supply increases, the price goes down.

For the sake of argument, if our money supply were, right now, tied to the price of gold, we would be suffering from staggering inflation, as the price of gold is north of a thousand dollars. When that price, inevitably, fall, so would the value of the currency.

Yes, we function with a fiat currency- it's money because you and I recognize it as such. With a strong central bank, and a Board of Governors who know what they are doing, inflationary and deflationary cycles are avoided by controlling the supply of money,(that's the short explanation. The full explanation would take pages to explain).

Thus, there have been Fed chairs with whom I have disagreed- one of whom was Volcker. He had a similar problem as that of Rumsfeld- to a man with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

Please don't let the conspiracy theorists on either side confuse you. ( yes, I see a lot of them on the right. They are just as nuts as the ones on the left).

By taking SIX years after the crash in 1907 to craft a central bank that was not just functional, but immune to politics, we have the single most effective central bank on the planet- or its history.

Despite market fluctuations, we have the strongest currency on the planet.

The Fed works, and works well. While I sometimes disagree with decisions made, I will never argue that it is not the best central bank ever conceived.

Any one who argues otherwise is simply wrong.

james-1416766

he isnt suggesting we carry around gold bars.

just that we have money that is backed by gold.....its really quite simple...instead of just printing more and more money that is worthless...depreciating our dollar......that we should only priint money in the amount of gold we have.

our dollar would be stronger.

But, James that's my point. It is the Feds who lower or raise rates accordingly.

Printing paper money is actually the responsibility of the U.S. Treasury's Bureau of Engraving and Printing

The Federal Reserve has multiple responsibilities. These include maintaining the stability of the nation's financial system, keeping inflation low, promoting maximum employment and moderate long-term interest rates, and distributing coin and paper money to the nation's depository institutions.

When interest rates rise, businesses are likely to invest less in capital and households are likely to spend less Lower interest rates are likely to cause businesses to invest more in capital and households to buy more big ticket items. In this way, interest rates affect the level of economic activity in the economy. The Federal Reserve System is able to affect the level of interest rates through its monetary policy.

So my arugment is instead of eliminating the feds why not beseech the business sitting on nearly 2 trillion to put demand back into the economy since interest rates are near zero now?

Surely, I think, that would not devalue the dollar. Dunno, I'm just trying to understand Ron Paul's rationale.

Nothing wrong with fiat currencies, but the Federal Reserve is no longer the same one it was in the early 20th century, it has gotten off track in the last 30 years and is way off track now. Trading companies should not be on the fed board using it's backing to play financial baccarat in the casino called Wall Street.

Something telling that trader and traitor are almost homonyms.

Ron is advocating a currency backed up by tangible assets, it doesn't have to be simply Gold. I watched a presentation in Austin where Ron and his people proposed a basket asset, oil, Gold, Silver, Coal, cotton, Beef, Wheat, and Corn pricing, as a basket asset to back up a new currency. The theory was that with a basket currency, there would be a hard value, but by diversification of the asset backing, the new currency would comprehend more of the total value of American Assets. The value would be weighted toward precious metals, at approximately 70%, with the remainder in a portions that could be interchangeable to reflect fluctuation in commodity pricing. Ron's people estimated that the new Dollar would initially be targeted to debut at 75% of today's Dollar value, with an annual increased Gold Reserve expansion in each of 12 annual periods, to eventually have a value 2 times current Dollar values. This would allow a person at 50 to retire with twice the value of savings in 12 years without any additional contribution but still pay current debts off with currency that is devalued. Ron also believed that a Currency that was valued as such would be a defacto world reserve currency regardless of what the formal Reserve Currency was designated as. Ron believes that a currency backed by hard assets would be more effective in protection of America than standing Armies, similarly to Switzerland for the last 200 years.

Ron's people estimated that the new Dollar would initially be targeted to debut at 75% of today's Dollar value

That means every asset I own, including the paper in my wallet would lose 25% in value overnight. Brilliant!

Stone, you are wrong. There are twelve commercial bankers on the Fed Advisory Council, and they only serve for three years, max.

Also, pay attention to the word ADVISORY. They advice the FOMC about the impacts of their decisions on the banking system- the FOMC has no obligation to adopt any suggestions made, nor to lend them any more than a deaf ear.

Bev, the Treasury department prints money- that does not mean it CREATES money. Money is created by banks- with the Fed in control of the supply.

I really wish this country would adopt a rule that all high school graduates show proficiency in basic economics- unfortunately, most teachers understand it no better than the average person. When I read posts and articles by well meaning people who have been persuaded that the Fed is evil, or that we should go back to the gold standard, ( might as well be diamonds, or soybeans- they are also commodities), I become very angry, because people are being exploited by those whose only agenda is to make a lot of that non-gold backed money for themselves.

My best advice, Bev, and the rest- do not listen to the nuts, or those who wish to exploit your lack of knowledge.

no joe, no bo, nj

Bev, those who advocate a return to the gold standard are, in my mind, so off base that it is hard for me to take them seriously. However, I will try to explain my opposition to you. You may agree or disagree, this is, after all, my opinion:

I'm glad you agree with me. I think you explained what Fort Knox really has better to me now.

Thus, there have been Fed chairs with whom I have disagreed- one of whom was Volcker. He had a similar problem as that of Rumsfeld- to a man with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

Now, I must disagree with you about the "Jolly Green Giant". Didn't he use Qe2 to boost the economy and it worked?

Anyhow, here's wishing you a nice day. Remember, tomorrow I want you to wish a box of chocolates from you to me instead of Obama bashing.

In the past those Obama rants--HATED THEM!!!

AmericanConscience, Paul's idea of a commodity basket is little better than his gold backed currency idea.

The volatility of the commodities market is well known. Moreover, it is subject to sources outside the control of mere humans-things such as droughts and floods, extremes of temperature, impact the supply.

It is for this reason that no thinking person has all of his or her assets in the commodities market- yet, Ron Paul wants all of the currency in there.

It is a crackpot idea.

Good afternoon Feisty

Didn't watch the Boner. Didn't want to see him cry. I did get a glimpse and turned to ABC. Since he was slurring, I assumed he was drunk; hence a wasted interview.

Do you know if the lunatics at CPAC presented their worthless"Pledge to America?

Girlfriend it's like a photo album.

It has more pictures than text. LOL Starting from page 1, then page 8, 10, 11, 12 and so on and so forth out of 48 pages. When I peeped it on the very first page I saw the Statue of Liberty.

Honestly, I thought it was Clarence Thomas's wife. Ginny, all covered in green.

http://pledge.gop.gov/resources/library/documents/pledge/a-pledge-to-america.pdf

Great cut and post as usual. Once again you failed in your argument. Insignificant post, but humorous to those who laugh at you.

safecracker

Great cut and post as usual.

Glad you liked it since it was about you nut crackers in the rabid right wing. BTW:Did you click on the links? Did you like the pictures?

Once again you failed in your argument. Insignificant post, but humorous to those who laugh at you.

Don't think so; The Boner is funnier though. To make my point more relevant, I'm tired of watching the Boner do the same thing; that is Cry boohoo, Cry lie, boohoo, slur Cry bohoo hoo hoo hoo.

My country full of tears. Get it?

“Glad you liked it since it was about you nut crackers in the rabid right wing. BTW:Did you click on the links? Did you like the pictures?”

Naw, wouldn’t take the time to click the link – no redeeming value for me…….after all, I am a nut cracker......Can you expand on that? Rabid right wing? HAHAHAHAHA, from a left-wing liberal that is a hoot.

“Boner is funnier though. To make my point more relevant, I'm tired of watching the Boner do the same thing; that is Cry boohoo, Cry lie, boohoo, slur Cry bohoo hoo hoo hoo. “ - I can understand your thoughts; I laugh at your clown too when he is without his teleprompter. He sounds as bad as Gibbs……..and I don't buy into your constant schoolyard rants. Childish Bev.

“My country full of tears. Get it?” Naw, explain in greater detail. My original thought about tears was the thought of reading your post. It is sad, for you haven’t raised an original thought of any significiant value.

You haven’t much to add to a discussion, just your little schoolyard tags on anyone who disagrees with your values. Your posts are, well, just boring.

safecracker

You haven’t much to add to a discussion, just your little schoolyard tags on anyone who disagrees with your values. Your posts are, well, just boring.

But you obviously read them boring or not; otherwise you would not reply.

Actually Bev, I read you and Feisty mainly to be thankful that I am not an ignorant libbie with no real ability to intelligently discuss a topic. Your childish retorts are what I show my children as the reason to continue with an education.

safecracker

Actually Bev, I read you and Feisty mainly to be thankful that I am not an ignorant libbie with no real ability to intelligently discuss a topic. Your childish retorts are what I show my children as the reason to continue with an education.

Wow, you should be ashamed of exposing the little children of the mean things you so rant against. A responsible parent would NOT do that. What you so despise and accuse me of is comparable to showing your kids porno.

Environment shapes a child's personality.

No disrespect, I hope your children don't grow up to be dumb@sses.

Don't show this to the little children.

Bev - GF!

Don't argue with this moron... someone who continually posts that certain people are dumber than 'dog snot' certainly is not well versed in intelligent discussion!

They crack me up with the holier than thou attitude!

The ignore - 'safecracker' key works magic! ;o)

If we weren't effective the likes of spanky, safecracker and the rest of the band of misfits would not devote all their time to following us around making fools out of themselves in the process!

I am not an ignorant libbie with no real ability to intelligently discuss a topic.

Said after a string of denigrating retorts that sounded like schoolyard taunts. Wow.

For the sake of argument, if our money supply were, right now, tied to the price of gold, we would be suffering from staggering inflation, as the price of gold is north of a thousand dollars. When that price, inevitably, fall, so would the value of the currency.

You tie the money to an amount of gold. This shows just how clueless you are. You tie a dollar to say 1/800 of an ounce a decade ago. today your 1/800 of an ounce of gold (dollar) would be worth MORE not less as a current $1 would be associated with 1/2000 of an once of gold. One you set the rate that's it. Unless there is an explosion of gold on the market inflation would never happen unless the united states just prinited more money without abtaining more gold, whiuch is what hosed OUR OLD GOLD STANDARD SYSTEM ANYWAY! Government spending more than they have resources for causes inflation and since currency IS NOT DEBT like some morons want to spew it is productivity!. I have X amount of productivity that I can now use to purchase someone elses productivity.

I'm confused why people are so stupid to the concept of a gold standard, we had it for a very very long time up until the pediphile FDR came along and screwed our children by altering the rates from there it fell like a block of led because he created entitlements that cannot be sustained unless we have inflation and a lot of it.

The gold standard consistantly support deflation. More people, less available money, cheaper cost to obtain that productivity. Holding a dollar is all the interest one would need. :) now holding the dollar pretty much means you're going to get screwed in the long run. This fosters debt spending which increases the inflation which increases the debt spending..

THANK YOU TED! That's what I've been trying to say all along, unfortunately people just don't get it

Guess they should get a half black guy in the pocket of the World banksters if they expect to have half a chance!!!!!

Most of you people are ridiculous. The fed was created inclusion with the big bankers and government so government can spend what ever it wants and banks can get rich off the american people. Lets see.... we had bank runs and minor recessions before 1913 and then we had the roaring 20's. Then we had the mother of all meltdowns in 1929. Since then its been the same. Boom cycle in the 50's and 60's, bust in the 70's. All created by the fed and central planners pumping money into the economy. Same with the NASDAQ bubble of the 90's and the housing bubble of 2008. The reason gold has risen so high is because investors are afraid to put there money into the american economy which is so shakey. it reacts opposite of the economy. Its not to hard to understand..

no offense, but 30% is not what i would call overwhelming support.

It is my understanding that Koch the daddy was a big funder of the John Birch Society, and his sons are just following in his footsteps with what is essentially their founding of the TeaBagger movement.

Unfortunately, there is no William Buckley stepping forward to kick the TeaBaggers to the curb like he did the JBS. In fact, the Birchers were welcomed back into the sponsorship roles of the CPAC just last year, as I recall.

Seems the TeaBags don't fall far from the tree, dunnit?

I think you hit on the most appalling thing of all, JC from LA. Buckley did kick the Birchers out, he knew that they were bad for the party and its reputation. Now, no rational Republican (there must be ONE left) will stand up and say, "you know, these folks are loons". No, what they do is allow the crazies to dictate policy. Where is the courage and statesmanship?

Feisty, in all honesty, that post from that poor creature made so little sense that I gave it a cursory glance and moved on. I wonder how anyone gets through the day feeling that much hatred for a man she doesn't know?

All I know is, the one who deserves the sympathy she so craves is her poor husband!

Could you imagine having to live with that? No wonder he travels so much - must be heaven not having to listen to her ravings 24/7!

Wouldn't surprise me if wasn't getting some on the side! ;o)

I just wouldn't want to live with that level of hatred burdening my soul!

does NewDayDawning and Fiesty red head love or hate No Jo.

I cannot tell. There sure seems to be some connection between the three.

Feisty: You need some one to help put your thoughts in print. Or maybe those are your thoughts. Say something intelligent and meaningful and maybe you won't get collapsed so much. I think you hold the record for collapses on FIRST READ.

Her thoughts get collapsed because they are understood and hit home. OUCH.

Paul, if you get any sense out of most of her comments I'm glad I don't know you. I won't stay in the vicinity of scatter brained people who can't carry on a conversation and stay on thought. MSNBC and News Vine didn't start this reader/poster forum for idiots to rant unintelligibly.

imnotlost

Paul, if you get any sense out of most of her comments I'm glad I don't know you. I won't stay in the vicinity of scatter brained people who can't carry on a conversation and stay on thought. MSNBC and News Vine didn't start this reader/poster forum for idiots to rant unintelligibly.

Is that your final answer or topic to share?

Sorry Bev: I got on here with full intentions of making a comment earlier, but Feisty was camping out again and like I told Paul I won't get involved with that banter. Not going there tonight.

imnotlost

Well, it looks like your little foray is over then. Unless you're still looking for Feisty.

Really I'hmnotlost: you sure didn't hesitate to enter in with the sole purpose of attacking Feisty. Paul is right. People who do that are bothered by what Feisty says...truth always hurts.

So, Bev, do you think I'mnotlost (who obviously IS lost) is simply upset at the lack of attention from Feisty? Yeah, probably!

newday

So, Bev, do you think I'mnotlost (who obviously IS lost) is simply upset at the lack of attention from Feisty? Yeah, probably!

Absolutely just like the rest of sick puppies.

Btw: Have you seen the Republican Pledge to American?

It has more pictures than text. LOL Starting from page 1, then page 8, 10, 11, 12 and so on and so forth.

http://pledge.gop.gov/resources/library/documents/pledge/a-pledge-to-america.pdf

They need the pictures, Beverly. Their club members can't read!

put their Pledge to America in comic book form.

No need, they made a movie of it Team America: World Police

America! F**K YEAH!

:)

Wouldn't surprise me if wasn't getting some on the side! ;o)

Didn't someone get banned for a week for posts attacking a person directly? Isn't this worse than what that individual posted? Gee, are there two standards on this site? Hey Dominaco, or whatever name you use, shouldn't this be taken into consideration for a week's vacation?

If you don't like what Feisty posts, you have the option of the ignore user flag. Since you aren't using it, I can only assume that you must enjoy reading her daily posts. Feisty; would you look at this....a new fan! I imagine that this poor person will be trying to get your attention in the next few days!

Feisty; would you look at this....a new fan!

Tell me about it NewDay!

I'm going to have to 'up' the membership criteria I see.

Some of these Feisty Redhead fan club 'wannna-be' members are getting just plain 'sloppy'! lol

You know I have VERY high standards for admission, but sadly, the talent pool is dwindling! ;o(

Happy Valentine's Day to you too, Beverly!

Thank you Newday don't forget to to check your e-mail box.

You too Feisty, check your e-mail box. Just in case I don't get to post tomorrow; since I'm early voting a Happy Valentine's day to you.

HA! You think you can get rid of me that easy.

I know three things "girlfriend."

1. Obama is the GREATEST president of our generation!

BTW "GIRLFRIEND!" Go ahead and get me banned ALL YOU WANT! Do you know HOW MANY variations of my moniker I can come up with? LOL!

You are MEAN and CRUEL and need to be called on it, no matter what your political stance.

Bev, I respect your opinions and comments! NDD I think you are a GREAT patriot and Democrat.

Feisty. I feel SHAME that we are on the same team! You are a CRUEL person. WWJD!

2. Obama WILL be re-elected in 2012!

3. You are a sadistic and CRUEL person and the ANTI-THESIS of EVERYTHING our President says we should be as Americans!

Get me banned! LOL!

Watch how FAST I come back!

You are either going to clean up your act (as our President has ASKED) or I will be back over and over and over and over and over to call you OUT on it.

BE RESPECTFUL! DON'T BE LIKE THE REPUGLICANTS!!!!!!! WE HAVE MORE CLASS THAN THEY DO!! SHOW IT!

Feisty; would you look at this....a new fan! I imagine that this poor person will be trying to get your attention in the next few days

NDD, I feel your posts are intelligent and relevant. I AM a fan of yours and Bevs but I'm NOT a fan of hers (until she sees how destructive her words are). Remember Feisty? "Words have consequences?" Isn't that what President Obama said?

Do you approve of how she addresses others?

I think it does a dis-service to our President and our cause.

I love our country and our President. President Obama has asked us to "tone down" the rhetoric. How does the inflammatory things Feisty posts help Him in that endeavor?

What she posts could almost be regarded as...

never mind.

No. On second thought I'll say it,

HATE SPEECH!

LOL! C'mon Feisty. Get me banned!

I'll bet I can come up with 10,000 variations of my moniker.

I am a PROUD progressive Democrat. You will NOT shame me or take that away from me by ignoring our President.

I'll check back in tomorrow,

and if I've been banned, I'll just create another "Feisty is a cruel mean person who makes fun of dead children" account.

Until she stops embarrasing me and my Party, My husband is gone to work and I have nothing else to do so you can BET on it!

First: Feisty would never do what you claimed. Second, I can speak for my friends, we don't flag people, we think it is an anti American thing to do. Feisty uses parody and satire to make a point. You find it offensive, but I do not. It serves to illustrate the larger issues of the day. SOMEONE has to make sure that they speak out, and Feisty has an amazing way to get attention. I would rethink how you see her posts, if you are taking them that personally, perhaps First Read is not a good site for you to visit. Lastly, Feisty is my friend. I will always step forward and defend friends. That is a duty of friendship. You might be better served to deal with issues rather than personalities, one does not wish to appear to harass another poster.

feistyrhmadefunofadeadchild

I really thing you are being overly sensitive. If you really care and love the President as much as you say, then you need to know Feisty is a very strong progressive. Do you lament the viciousness of the people who attack her? You have to develop thick skin otherwise when you are attacked you will get caught up in the murkiness rather than the issues on hand.

Feisty is one of the best debaters on this board. She would never stifle your voice because she wants to tell the truth. Fortunately, she is very good friend , bright, rational,quick and witty which sparks many to challenge her. She welcomes dialogue.

I've had so many collapes it would make your head spin. I don't let that stop me; nor do I flag anyone because I think if it's that asinine it needs to stand for everyone to see.

dear irish

Americans and Europeans governments love "dictators" because they can more easily exploit the wealth of these nations !!! however, "whites" won't tolerate dictators on their own soil !!!

Bush's experience didn't help us keep America or Americans safe. So far Obama hasn't gotten 7,000 of us killed.

IrishNewcomer

if the Democrats can elect an Obama, then anyone is electable. Pity this country when inexperienced folks can be elected as president. No wonder that many are worried about Egypt's next president.

Except Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Newt the Grinch who stole Christmas, and the rest of that whole cabal. It's seems to me the only ones worried are those on Fear Network.

Especially, that former Bush ambassador John Bolt-on. You know the one with that gray mustache who really looks like Hitler on crack. Usually, his only solution to anything is Bomb Iran. Now that's scary.

Wonder how long will it be before he statrs talking about bombing Iran again?

BTW: did you see how stupid Swan Hannity looked last night when could not give his expert conservative guess the handjive about the Muslim Brotherhood? I was LMAO when he told Swan Hannity “It is very difficult to ride the tiger when you get into these kinds of events. “I think the other thing, Sean, is I’m a little concerned when Republicans talk, are afraid of freedom. That wasn’t the way of Ronald Reagan.”

Looks like Swan committed a cardinal sin against St. Reagan; off to the confessional

I don't worry about the selfish people. It's the people who tell you they only care about what's best for others that I keep an eye on.

As a progressive I admire him for standing on what he believes and will debate point by point. He and Kucinich should share the presidency and draw a line in the middle. CPAC is a complete joke and an embarrasment to any thinking person.

The disturbing fact is you guys try to recruit for the TP by thinking that the fact that we on the left don't like wars--my guy didn't start any--just cleaning up after Bush. If there was ever a 'kill granny' party, it's the Tea Party. It's the message--"I've got mine--screw you" that I hear.

sandtrich, Obama's not cleaning-up, he's expanding the Bush/Cheney doctrine. Obama is just like the old boss--A War Criminal, who loves torture, rendition, AND ENDLESS WAR...His Puppetmasters are just laughing behind his back!!

Mercy --

It's in the article--

"The selection of Paul – an isolationist, anti-war fiscal conservative who advocates for the dismantling of the Federal Reserve"

Kind of a gold-leaf distinction, I would have to say.

Non-interventionist! Madoffs of the country unite!!!!

Mercy,

One would tend to think of someone who wants to do away with all foreign aid as an isolationist.

So all the countries that don't send us aid are isolating themselves from us? Where do you come up with this stuff? Lay off the Kool-Aid. We spend more on our BS empire building than the rest of the world combined. I think we can get away with cutting it back a bit or at least have the countries that we are protecting, foot the bill for their own expences. While they are allowed to let their economies become robust due to no defence spending, our children's futures are being mortgaged. For what? The world don't see us as saviors. They see us as invaders, which is exactly what we are. If the main stream media were to show images of the damage to life that we have caused, this country would and should be rioting in the streets. What we are doing now is isolation. How many countries do you feel safe going to being an American? You think they hate us cause we are free? Wake up!

A currency backed by hard assets is as effective as foreign aid that serves to buy allies. We buy our relationships similarly to the big fat chick that is rich, but nasty and obnoxious; the only way she can get a date is to buy one. We could bring our Military back to the levels immediately after the fall of the Soviet Union, spend more money on technology based weapons platforms, (which create civilian benefits in the periphery), and double the net worth of EVERY American by simply backing our currency with hard assets. Ron favors a basket of assets, 70 percent of which would be a combination of silver and gold. The remainder, Oil, Coal, Beef, Cotton, Wheat, Corn, and Natural Drinking water. Ron believes that a basked of assets like these will give a new currency more representation of America's true wealth, and in about a decade simply double everyone's net worth. Imagine having your retirement double without any interest rate help, or additional contribution.

A deflationary domestic economy would certainly be problematic intially, but our products would be MUCH cheaper, even as cheap as China's, as our currency reached 5x to 10x of the current Dollar value. An equal cost decrease of 5x to 10x would occur with all of our products, making them MUCH cheaper overseas.

1. go to a hard asset backing of the Dollar
2. Re Align our military to next generational technology based weapon systems, the technology would spawn civilian industries and benefits
3. Draw Down troops to the level of the late 80's, but increase their offensive fire power of the overall American Military
4. By default, create a price decrease for all American Goods sold over seas which puts the American Mfg Base back to work domestically.

Obama has to watch his step until the second term. Then he can expose the RE-peat-the-lie-to-the-PUBLIC-ans for the criminals that they are.

I wish some of the folks that think so little of Ron Paul actually knew him & his family. What's so wrong with honesty? What's wrong with freedom? What's wrong with not having to pay higher taxes? What's wrong about securing a future for our children? What's wrong with not having to send YOUR child into a political war?

Here is what the problem is: how would the country pay its bills? Ron Paul is Don Quixote tilting at imaginary monsters that are really windmills. What he says is unworkable, and it is frightening that he does not get that.

That's odd newsay, I believe that all politicians except Paul are tilting at windmills. They keep telling us how we can maintain our empire, pay our unfunded entitlements, produce little, and fund it all on debt and inflation. I would say a better analogy is that Ron Paul is the little boy in the Emperor's New Clothes. What frightens me is how someone like you does not get that.

How does the country pays bills right now. If you or me had the debt and deficits of the country, to scale, we would be involuntarily forced to declare bankruptcy.

The debt cannot continue. It really is that simple.

What frightens ME Kara, is that you have so little understanding of this country that you would think that Paul is a legitimate candidate.

Freedom---you guys just copy and paste the same lines every post.

Freedom---you guys just copy and paste the same lines every post.

Sadly sandtrich - UH HUH!

That's all they got - repeat it enough and *poof* all of a sudden it becomes magically true! :o))

Kara -

There is one entitlement that is, in fact, fully funded through (I beleive) 2037, at least. That's Social Security. And it's an entitlement because recipients (seniors) are entitled to it because they (and the rest of us are doing now) paid into it all their working lives. It's their money set aside for them, and for each of us, when the time comes. The problem isn't that it's unfunded, it's that there are trillions in IOUs currently in the SS Trust Fund - money "borrowed" from the fund to fund the disastrous experiment in trickle-down theory, two wars, endless corporate welfare, etc. etc. That's a fact the far-right corporo-teabaggers don't want us to think about. They wish to demonize seniors (and dis-abled) as "free-loaders" off the taxpayers. Like I said - they already paid into the fund - it's their money.

Dave -

But then stating his true leanings cause the liberals to rant and rave, would it? they might have to think about something and the liberal media can't have that. So they continue to spoon-feed the liberal masses their propaganda.

Dave Slater-3049830

Our founding fathers supported good, open relations and trade with other countries and warned against entangling alliances.

What about the "Father of the Constitution," who asked Congress to declare the War of 1812? Have you forgot Dolley Madison? I'm not talking about cupcakes here... just asking.

HI man this is what I think,in any giving situation,God always raise a star to get us out of our misery.It happenen since SDR,JFK,Clinton,MLK,Abraham Ld,And now Obama.When the Republicain down all their demagog,to stop him,He was elected anyway.God was sitting on his Thrown when Obama runs,and he is still.And no man can stop him to be re-elected ,if it is God's will.So brother, let the bla bla,and the yaky,yak talk going on.Cheers.

Finally, someone with some sense and perspective! Ron Paul would attempt to change everything that we Americans find so pervasive - starting with the Faux banking system called the Federal Reserve. I would vote for him in 2012 - are we not all tired of the same old promises going in and the same old results when they leave??

I think Ron Paul is a Good Man , but the good ol' boys in the GOP will never nominate him. I would like see a lot of new faces in Washington In 2012. Both parties have lost their way and spend more time playing the blame game than solving problems. We have almost reached the point of no return with our economy.

I usually vote democrat.

I'd vote for Ron Paul in a heartbeat.

He actually stands for what this country should have been. By the People for the People.

Just to be clear - you mean the Ron Paul who bailed out of the Republican primaries in 2008, having won less than10% of the vote - that Ron Paul? Actually almost made it into the double digits. Impressive.

Just to be clear, Ron was a local politician, with no National Brand recognition and a hostile media industry bent of marginalizing any candidate that stands for what Ron does. Ross Perot only ran to @!$%# Bush I, and he had a willing media backing him, (less candidate, more impact simply because of favorable media coverage). The electorate is more sophisticated now, they primarily get their news from alternative sources, and Ron is speaking the language of revolution. If you notice, there is a @!$%#ing revolution happening Globally, the same sentiments exist here in the US. Ron doesn't have to win, he only has to take enough votes to hurt either party, it makes Ron and his backers, spoilers. Somebody will either kill him, or attempt to buy him off, and at his age, he cannot be bought. Look for Ron to launch his son into the national spotlight by brokering a national deal with the GOP.

Sounds like you've moved into the perfect district. Good for you. However, Ron Paul is a snake in the grass.

Actually, he is each and every one of those things, in spades. With a side-order of anti-semitism thrown in for good measure.

You need to do some reading about your deity, pardner.

Indeed. Ron Paul has tried to deny his articles and opinions he's espoused in his newsletters. If you read them they are racist to the hilt. He uses the word "Boy" alot. He and his libertarian friends use the "small government" constitution/bs to camoflauge the fact that he wishes the Civil Rights Act to be repealed and he, (like his son (Ayn)Rand Paul), would like to see private businesses be able to discriminate against well, whomever. Like how did that voluntary compliance work out for the South during the (former) Jim Crow days? Jim Crow is still alive and well in the South and in Texas, where RePaul is Rep for a teeeny, tiney little area mostly filled with ranchers (while I respect their occupation, their politics has been dubious at best)...

He's a millionaire congressman who has peddled his snake oil philosophies with practically no backlash. The only thing he got right is to be against the war in Iraq--as many of us civilians out here were--protests and all. That is not enough to redeem him as a viable candidate for the 21st century. He's stuck in the 1930's somewhere.

LiberalLibrarian

Racist Rants in Ron Paul newsletters video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEzmqZLr4rs

Also, I saw a video with Ron Paul and his followers a couple years ago actually yelling N*&&%r this and N*&^$r that; with a few choice curse words sprinkled in between.

I just don't feel like researching it.

I hope they learned that whenever there is a third party no one wins .

And America is left catchy phrases and broken promises.