E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSFrom NBC's Domenico Montanaro and Carrie Dann
Rep. Ron Paul, a Libertarian presidential candidate in 1988 and a Republican contender in the last presidential race, is giving it another try.
Paul has already formed a formal exploratory committee for a presidential run, a significant step in running for president -- although according to the Federal Election Commission he has not yet filed an official statement of candidacy.
But, looking for another bite at the media apple, Paul will "make a major announcement" on Good Morning America on Friday morning, according to a Paul spokesman. It's another opportunity for the Texas lawmaker to draw additional attention to his scheduled appearances in early primary states New Hampshire and Iowa during a two day campaign swing beginning Friday morning – and of course, to raise money for another bid.
Paul, a fierce foe of the Federal Reserve and a frequent “no” vote on uncontroversial legislation that he considers unconstitutional, won political celebrity status after raising millions with online “money bombs” during the 2008 campaign. He also irked his GOP rivals by suggesting that the 9/11 attacks were the result of American intervention abroad. (And, yesterday, he said that he would not have ordered the bin Laden raid.
He received the support of 5 percent of GOP and GOP-leaning voters in a recent national poll from Quinnipiac.
Leave a Comment:
Perfect!
What a 'stellar' cast of characters this is shaping up to be! lol
Would that be the same Ron Paul whose a 'disciple' of Ayn Rand!
In fact, didn't he name his son after her?
He's an Ayn Rand disciple, that's good.
No.. he did not name is son after Ayn Rand. That is a popular myth.
If you get to know Paul as a person and understand his views, you will respect them... disagree you may... but He is a good man that believes in improving this nation for all.
- He would end the wars and bring troops home, freeing up a trillion to spend at home or cut the deficits.
- He would end ALL corporate SUBSIDIES to ALL industries.
- He would AUDIT the Federal Reserve and shed light on crimes committed by the bankers
- He would push to end the war on drugs that has incarcerated over 2 million Americans for NON-VIOLENT offences wrecking families and costing tax payers billions per year. He would treat drugs as a public health issue like we do nicotine and alcohol.
- He would push to end the patriot act
- He would uphold civil liberties and people's rights to do what they want to do so long as it does not harm someone else.
- Finally, he would push to reform ALL trade agreements that benefit the rich at the expense of American workers.
Many of these things even Obama promised, but has not done.
Given his ABYSMAL record to date Sarah Palin will whup Obama in a New York Minute
_____________________________________________________________________________________
The leftist Democrats and socialist/ cronie capitalist Republicans have combined forces to villify Sarah Palin as they recognize her to be the single greatest threat to the criminal enterprise known as Washington, DC
Palin/ Rubio 2012
LMAO!
Sarah WHO?
Wait!
Are talking about the ex-Governor from AK who QUIT half way through her term to pick the low information voters pockets?
Feisty - Unfortunately, it was Rand Paul who chose his first name. He had it legally changed because he so admired the author. I like the idea of Ron Paul having done so, but not so.
Ron Paul is one of those perpetual candidates. If there's an election, he's got the runs.
His Libertarian point of view is what essentially animates people like No Jo and JAS1. They think that if people are simply left to themselves to make all choices they will as a mass - not precisely as individuals - always make the right choices. Since we've seen how THAT worked in the 2010 elections, I believe we can safely say the Libertarians are living in cloud cuckoo land. While I do believe in the collective wisdom of the nation, I also have learned it's possible to let a few fools turn that wisdom on its head.
There is a reason there are laws. There's a reason that people live in communities - and have been, since people first started. There's a reason there is a "social contract," and that the people together form reasonable expectations of their society.
The Libertarians believe none of that.
As my Newsvine tagline says, Libertarians and Republicans are simply WRONG.
Hey, the screech owl showed up, and as usual did a swoop and poop without any value.
Madison, at least you are consistent.
How's your bum doing, find anything to counter the burning bile?
You describe libertarians as anarchists... this is simply false.
First off, while Paul leans Libertarian... he is not full fledged.
Second, libertarians DO believe in laws and government... just limited to necessities.
Paul supports the Constitution above ALL other political platforms. Many things Paul would end at the Federal level, he supports leaving to local communities and states.
Cloud cuckoo? Just how is it that libertarians are cuckoo from 2010 elections? What are you talking about? You're on another planet from most of the country. I'm sure you would vote Palin, Cuckoo-Cuckoo
Mr. Rogers, you must live in an alternate reality neighborhood.
No, i live in the same America as you... with 30-40 million unemployed.. $15 Trillion debt.. 40 million Americans on food stamps, jobs shipped over seas, uncontrollable inflation, declining US power and prestige, poor public education system, health care system with out-of-control costs, political system that works for the rich and powerful and screws the common man...where 6 years are frisked or radiated in order to travel "safely"...
I wish I lived in an alternate reality where America was much better... I believe Paul would push to bring that.
He did name one of his sons Ru, who is in the entertainment industry in LA.
I wish somebody would run on a Libertarian ticket. Split the vote and let the Dems win!
Okay, so Paul will make an announcement and the parade gets longer. This is like a stage production where Karl Rove is the director, feeding the cast their lines.
I have heard Ron Paul speak and do agree with much of what he says. Obama promised numerous things and he's already running for reelection without getting the "promise list" accomplished. So much for promises and ideas.
No matter who gets elected, they do the bidding the "hidden" individuals, not what the voters want.
Palin/ Rubio 2012
The joke of the day.
NEWT/NJNUTJOB would get my vote! ;o)
Heck, I'd even donate to THAT campaign! lol
"The leftist Democrats and socialist/ cronie capitalist Republicans have combined forces to villify Sarah Palin as they recognize her to be the single greatest threat to the criminal enterprise known as Washington, DC"
_______________________________
I kept looking for a sarcasm marker but there actually wasn't one here.
One can only imagine what a totally unconstrained marketplace would bring to America? Certainly not a thriving economy for all. Much more of a benefit for the few.
But that is the Republican/TP belief. That we are essentially indentured servants to the monied interests in this country. For it is that exact situation their policies would solidify.
Rubio could flame out quickly and Palin is already dead in the water. Even if he ran (when he has said he won't) he would be Michelle Bachmann moon bat crazy to pick Palin as a running mate. She certainly will not be heading any tickets in 2012.
Ron Paul couldn't win a single state's primary...he's a nut job that's proven that again and again--but in a Republican field this bad--everyone gets their 15 minutes.
You missed the point. Palin/Rubio 20/12. That is their IQs. Although I believe it is reversed. I believe Rubio has the 20, and Palin the 12.
Man, I am loving these GOP cast of characters who are going to run!! Newt(cheater), Palin(empty soundbites), and now Paul. This is going to shape up to be a beautiful election again. I wish they would come out with ideas. This doesnt include Paul, he should keep going with his idiotic policies. Which one could even come close to debating Obama?
Libertarianism was a great social political philosophy 150 years ago. Back when the US was all frontier. Back when there were maybe 20 million people in this country. There was rural utopianism, American transcendentalism, rugged individualism, and the true ability to live your life with little contact with any form of government.
But that was almost two centuries in our past. This is the 21st century and we are the worlds largest economy with a population around 300 million people. Libertarians want to be time travellers, back to a time when their political philosophy had a shadow of a chance at succeeding. Now its just a fairy tale. So unrealistic as to be laughable. It aint going to happen Ron...
I wonder if a true libertarian and strict Constitutionalist as Ron Paul presents himself to be, would abolish America's standing army? Most Constitutional scholars agree that the original intent for defending America was to rely on a well-trained militia fearing a strong and well armed Federal government. (There was also the issue Washington raised on leaving the Presidency; something about avoiding foreign entanglements.) The original architects of the Constitution evidently believed that there was no reason to have a federal defense mechanism other than a Navy. Just curious about what Mr. Paul's supporters think.
I believe that a large standing army naturally leads to aggression. A core group of officers and non-commissioned officers should be maintained for the purpose of providing vision and training. The militia is more than sufficient to provide for the national defense; not the current offensive posture of our military. Attemps to maintain the American Empire and police the globe are both unsustainable and ineffective. Let's bring the troops home, promote the growth of our domestic economy, and prosper in peace.
Mr. Rogers..
All the things you listed that Paul wanted to do is just that, stuff he wants to do. Obama wanted to do a lot himself but ran into so much opposition that he didn't get through some of the more controversial items. Paul would be no different, enough Republicans and Democrats will band together and not stand for changes to the staus quo.
IF/when the Republicans come up with serious candidates, these articles should be moved from the Politics section to the Entertainment section, because that's exactly what it is. I'm actually looking forward to the primary debates this time and may record them as well, before the Repub candidates start dropping out like lead weights. I just hope the rest of the world will still take us seriously, but that's Obama's job and he's more than capable.
ROFL!!! OMG!! what a #@$%ing idiot!
Mr. Roger's let the haters hate, I find it extremely amusing that I'm seeing all over the internet (well other than in the happy huggy world of FR) that Dr. Paul is now considered the candidate with the answers where it used to be he was thought of as too extreme. It's about time we got back to our constitutional roots and made the Democrats and Republicans BOTH realize that it's not about THEM it's about US, we the PEOPLE!
I don't understand why people seem to take offense at Dr. Paul's views, what's wrong with the federal govt adhering to the constitution and letting the states and the PEOPLE decide for themselves (by voting) how they want their individual states run? Democrats hate the idea because they will no longer be able to take from some to give to others, Republicans hate the idea because well basically the same thing.
Madison From NY
Sorry to break your hear, but Rubio has already said he will not run.
Palin just wants the glory, No GOP will run with her.
Madison - Sarah Palin would beat Obama? You've been hitting the bottle again, haven't you? Sarah Palin couldn't beat ME! Please - get a clue.
Except of course if you're gay and want to get married, as Ron Paul supports DOMA and even authored the "Marriage Protection Act" which would deny due process to married gays. He even wants the government out of the marriage business and have churches regulate it.....but he doesn't say who will determine child custody or property distribution in a divorce. And if you're an atheist, you're screwed.
He's also a neoconfederate who voted against the Voting Rights Act, and has said that he doesn't support the Civil Rights Act. And he opposes the 2003 Lawrence v Texas ruling.
If you believe in civil rights and personal liberty, Ron Paul would be an absolute disaster.
The idea that this clown would legally name himself after Ayn Rand is reason enough alone not to vote for him. Seriously, Ayn Rand's philosophy of objectivism is the ultimate over-simplification of social ethics and appeals to people like Rand because of it's oversimplification. To people like Rand Paul it's easier to make broad sweeping generalizations about the world than to really get down and understand what real truths are. For instance, these are the people that believe torture and racial profiling really work. The world is much more complicated than Ayn Rand or Rand Paul followers will try and have you believe.
That being said...I hope he does run! It will be a rogues gallery of idiots with Gingrich, Paul, Trump, Bachman, et al. I hope also get to see Palin and Huckabee join too. Can you imagine the collective ignorance of that brain trust! It'll be great TV!!
Ron Paul is the only man running who has a voting track record none of you can argue with. He was against the wars when it was popular, even though his party and the other party was for it. Now we would all like to go back and undo our obvious mistakes. His fiscal policies are the only solution that makes sense to anyone who has studied economics beyond high school. His adherence to the Constitution is a lonely place in our current Congress and Washington. He is the only man on Capitol Hill, except for his son and a few others who cannot be blackmailed or bought. Say what you will about Dr. Paul, but he is the real deal. Democrat or Republican, those of you who are honest will recognize him as one of your own.
While he has some libertarian tendencies - he still supports abortion (which consequentially Ayn Rand did not) and rallies against gays getting married. For someone who wants minimal government involvement in your lives - he sure does want them involved in your life.
(And, yesterday, he said that he would not have ordered the bin Laden raid.)
Now that's a quick way to lose votes! If the GOP agrees with ANYTHING the president's done, it's likely getting bin Laden - in fact, they only wish they themselves had done the deed.
WOW... so many lies.
Paul ACTUALLY SUPPORTED and VOTED FOR going after Bin Laden and authorizing force to kill him. What he does NOT support is endless war in Iraq and Afghanistan and other places against people who did NOT attack us.
Get your facts straight less you be known as a fool and a liar.
Adding to the list of stances that make Ron Paul both iconoclastic and unelectable, the Texas congressman said he would not have authorized the raid on Osama bin Laden.
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/05/ron-paul-says-wouldnt-ordered-bin-laden-raid/37635/
Mr. Rogers, "Get your facts straight less you be known as a fool and a liar."
Ah, I misread and thought you meant in the general since. Paul did authorize force in Afghanistan to attack Bin Laden and Al Qaeda.
He didn't exactly say we should not have caught bin Laden, he just said we should have respected Pakistan's national sovereignty.
I find it interesting Bush caught so much flak for not playing nice with the international community, and Obama, apparently, is cut from the same cloth.
"We went and cooperated with Pakistan."
What kind of cooperation do you suppose Pakistan was looking for, considering bin Laden had been hiding 'in plain sight' for the past five years in their sovereign nation? They're acting like a cancer survivor who's mad at the surgeon for having the audacity to remove the malignancy.
Ursela
If Obama really thinks the Pakistanis would not have aided in the capture of bin Laden, why does he still want to give them billions of dollars in aid for information that he obviously does not believe? It was a bigger bump to his campaign to say he gave the order for bin Laden's death, that's why. But now the international groups that Obama values so much more than our own congress is questioning why he had to be killed rather that captured since there were so many "unarmed" people in the compound, rather than a 40 minutes fire fight that has been reported. Don't get me wrong, PERSONALLY, I am glad bin Laden is dead. But you have to wonder at the changes in the released stories.
Texana Deb, as one of your famous Texans once said, "It is wise to keep your friends close and your enemies closer" (Lyndon Baines Johnson). Pakistan has too many ties to terrorist groups to leave them to their own devices - and among the most worrisome devices they have are nuclear weapons. I don't like giving them resources, but cutting all ties with the Pakistanis doesn't seem too bright either.
Uh, MsWheezer, weren't there a couple of UN Resolutions about using all means necessary to get Osama?
And, doesn't the UN represent a great portion of the international community?
@ Texana Deb
You're making it sound like Obama himself pulled the trigger and killed UBL. Obama gave the authorization to kill UBL if necessary but it was up to the Navy Seal that shot him to make that determination. Remember, Obama was thousands of miles away and was not giving second to second orders to the Navy Seals and for anyone, even these "international groups", to question why UBL was shot is really questioning the judgement of the Navy Seal. Their life was not on the line....the Navy Seal's life was on the line if he made one mistake.
As for Ron Paul, he's like the rest of the candidates who lost but keep coming back again and again. If there's a serious contender to beat Obama it will be someone that hasn't been through the election process and lost. The only person since television debates that ever did that was Richard Nixon and we know how that turned out. Think about it. Carter came out of the blue to beat Ford, Reagan beat Carter, Bush basically got a free pass with his chosen opposition, Clinton beat Bush, G W Bush was new on the national scene as well as Obama. The one thing that is common in all these elections is that none of these elected presidents lost in previous years.
JC from IA, every last one of those resolutions included language something along the lines of: in accordance with the Charter of the UN and international law. That little caveat pre-empts violating another state's sovereignty. Have you read a UN resolution? Here's one: http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/1904(2009)
I'm also pretty sure the US would have been beyond peeved if some other country found known terrorists in the US and implemented their own military strike to get rid of them without getting the OK from the US gov't first.
"We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them." -- George W. Bush, 9/20/01
Certainly there could be doubt that the Pakistani government knew that UBL was hiding within a mile of their academy but there is also doubt that no one high in the military knew he was there and protecting him. By informing the Pakistani government that we were going to strike would have given someone time to warn UBL which may have already happened more than once.
Libya's sovereignty isn't being violated? How about Afghanistan? They didn't attack the US but the UN is there.
"And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." -- George W. Bush, 9/20/01
Ron Paul is a Libertarian. Libertarianism is a political philosophy that includes diverse beliefs and organizations—all advocate either the minimization or the elimination of the state, and the goal of maximizing individual liberty and freedom. Repeat ELIMINATION OF THE STATE. Sounds a lot like anarachy to me.
He's an isolationist, a position that would have served him well in from 1900 to 1941. We were isolationists then and yet we managed to get into 2 World Wars.
Seems he is willing to ignore the realities of the world we llive in and sticks to both antiquated and incomprehensible ideas that would destroy the foundation this country was built on.
Words are funny things. If you LISTEN TO PAUL's OWN WORDS he is a CONSITUTIONALIST and beleives in limiting the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Many things he would end at the federal level he supports leaving to the states.
What is so wrong allowing people in their local communities to have control over their own lives? Do you actually think a bunch of bought off clowns hundreds of miles away in DC have your interest at heart?
Get to know Paul and his beliefs before you judge him. You clearly do not know what you are talking about.
More LIES. Paul is a NON-INTERVENTIONIST... not an isolationist.
Isolationists believe in cutting off the rest of the world. They believe in NO-TRADE and no alliances.
NON-INTERVENTION means trading with other countries and forming alliances. The DIFFERENCE is NOT-INTERFERING in the INTERNAL AFFAIRS of other nations.
Again, you SIMPLY do not KNOW what you are talking about.
Mr. Rogers.
If you LISTEN TO PAUL's OWN WORDS he is a CONSITUTIONALIST ...
...................................................................
Crossposted at the Michigan Messenger
[COMMENTARY] In an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul responded to charges of being a racist because of his association with a racist newsletter. Since this incident and other allegations, including a Michigan Messenger report that Paul’s campaign was receiving support from neo-Nazis and white supremacists, his campaign has tried to distance itself from racist accusations.
However, Paul, who has descibed himself as a libertarian, says that his philosophy precludes his being a racist.
Not my words his.
Mr. Rogers.
More LIES. Paul is a NON-INTERVENTIONIST... not an isolationist.
..........................................................
During the GOP debates in 2008, Paul was asked by Wolf Blitzer under what circumstances, if he were president, would Paul intervene outside the borders of the United States in some sort of crisis around the world.
“When Congress directed me to in the act of war,’’ Paul replied. “If our national security was threatened and we went through the proper procedures, Congress would say, our national security is involved, it is threatened and we have to act. And Congress has that responsibility. The president is the command-in- chief, and then he acts.’’
So only if there were a declaration of war by congress would he intervene. No action under the Energency War Powers act so he would not have invaded Afghanastan after 911. No action cause no declaration of war.
He is worse than an isolationist or non interventionist...he won't stand up and protect the US after it's attacked UNLESS Congress declares war.
You mean like FDR after the attack on Pearl Harbor? You really think there would not have been a declaration of war from congress after 9/11 if Bush had followed the "correct procedures"?
I can send you a copy of the Constitution. No part of the Constitution was debated more than the act of giving congress the SOLE power over declaring war. It is WELL documented that the founders knew the executive branch was most prone to starting wars, and that this power should be left to congress alone.
If a conflict is not important enough for congress to declare war, it is not important enough to risk the lives of young American men and women.
Incidentally, Paul authorized the use of force in Afghanistan to go after Bin Laden.
Mr. Rogers, I posed a question at #1.21 that you might like to address regarding what Mr. Paul's strict constructionist position regarding America's military might be. I really am curious and look forward to your comments.
Dude, FDR couldn't have stood up if he wanted to.
Mr. Rogers.
Incidentally, Paul authorized the use of force in Afghanistan to go after Bin Laden
.....................................................................................
....but there was no declaration of war...so according to what you just said he authorized the invasion a sovereign country without a declaration of war. Sounds a whole lot like intervention to me.
Also..he runs as a Libertarian, endorses their platform and speaks for that party as a candidate. Lo0ks like a duck, sounds like a duck....
Alan, NJ.......
FDR had been trying to get the (mostly republicans in) Congress to join the war for many months. His Lend/Lease program was done in spite of the isolationists (again, mostly republicans) in Congress.
One wonders if folks are really this ignorant of history or if they simply distort for their own nefarious purposes.
Wanda Has a Baby - we didn't start a war with Libya. We have offered some advisory support and some air cover. Everything else is being done by the UN. We are NOT at war with Libya.
Ron Paul can beat Barack Obama handily because Obama favors illegal aliens over hard working citizens.
Madison From NY
Ron Paul can beat Barack Obama handily because Obama favors illegal aliens over hard working citizens.
.....................................................................
....and so did President Bush and John McCain and a whole slew of other GOPers.
Good to know illegals are not hardworking. Nice sterotype. I know they ALL sit around all day drinking beer and committing crimes.
You obviously don't spend anytime on farms, orchards or meat packing houses. Rarely will you find hard working citizens. Without illegal or immigrant labor food prices would rise significantly. Get real.
It seems logical that if undocumented individuals could not find employment, they would not remain here. In fact, according to the Labor Department, the steady stream across our borders has recently become a trickle. Rather than chasing these people all over Hell's half acre, why not go after the employers?
Bruce, that's pretty much what the DoJ has been doing since Obama took over, going after the habitually offending employers. Seems any illegals tend to clear out, when they see the head of HR being walked out, which saves us the trouble and great expense of rounding them up and deporting them.
So, not only are US law-breakers being targeted, the "illegal" problem is decreasing.
And, boy-oh-boy, does that ever piss off certain "trade associations" in big business!
Madison - lies don't make your posts believeable or you credible. President Obama does NOT favor illegals over citizens. What a moronic post. He favors a path to citizenship for immigrants but that is hardly favoring anyone over citizens. More Republican stupidity!
End the Fed! Ron Paul 2012!
Out of the current people running for 2012 he might have a shot.
With over what 500 days to go I think we should worry about our country and not campaigning though!
If he going to make all drugs legal, he has my vote!
Oh what could it be????
Good, I'm tired of stopping at stoplights and stop signs. It's a violation of my rights to allow handicapped people to park closer to the store than I can. Those lines in the road are stealing my liberty to drive on any part of the highway I choose. And what's with speed limits? Advertisers promote speedy vehicles and then the damned government tells me how fast I can drive them - pure socialism!!!
I don't think Paul ever said we should do away with enforceable rules. But if you really like anarchy on the streets you should try driving in Italy.
Moscow's another good place for that particular experience...
Heck, let's buy American - I vote for the Jersey Turnpike!
"...a frequent “no” vote on uncontroversial legislation that he considers unconstitutional..."
I find the use of the term "uncontroversial" an odd and partisan choice in what would otherwise be a straightforward report. If it was to be used, it would seem better to offer an elaboration - which the remainder of the paragraph really does not present. The choice of a more politically-neutral adjective (or none at all) would be better still.
Ron Paul is expected to announce on Friday that he will be running for President as a Republican. Sometime later, Ron Paul is expected to announce that he will be dropping out of the race because he couldn't place higher than third in any of the Republican primaries. Video at 11:00.
Maybe you would prefer Boss Hogg current Hazard County Executive.
Haley Barbour already said he isn't running.
Hahahaha!
Conneticut has Nader. Minnesota had Stassen. Now the title passes to Texas with its "Ron Paul". Looks like these people simply have no sense of social propriety nor political sense. Embarrassing!
I'm an admirer of Ron Paul, though I question his opposition to abortion considering he is strongly against government intervention in individuals' private decisions. Still, he's a smart guy. He usually avoids the samo samo Tea Party catch words like "socialism." There's no way in hades he will get the nomination, or for that matter, defeat Obama if he did miraculously get the GOP nod. Sorry folks, but barring a Hail Mary from the Republicans, Barack has 2012 in the bag. But hey, it would be cool to see a 77 year-old giving it his best shot.
Yeah other than being 77, against all government intrusion except for women of course, and for legalization of prostutiton, cocaine and heroin...he's a real shoe-in. This Republican field grows sillier and sillier.
Miquel,
The opposition to abortion comes from the Declaration of Independence. But the bigger picture is that if we can justify the taking of a human life there is no stance for upholding the law that makes murder illegal. There is no justification for outlawing euthanasia, honor killings or any other way of taking a life.
The Libertarian view, contrary to what some people in these forums would like you to believe, is that the rights of everyone must be upheld equally. Once rights or laws are given exceptions then it is much easier for governments to start taking away rights, freedoms and liberties from specific individuals or groups. All you have to do is look at our tax code to see how things can go very wrong.
"equal rights for everyone, special privileges for no one" --Thomas Jefferson
By the way Dr. Paul is 75 years young.
---
AP,
The legalization of prostitution and illicit drugs is probably a good idea. Do you recall prohibition? We learned that it was easier to control/regulate alcohol and the associated nefarious activities once it was legalized.
One other point is that each state would be able to establish their own laws as to the drug and abortion issues as Dr. Paul has stated time and again the Federal government has enumerated responsibilities/powers and those are the only things it should be taking care of.
A state may impose on its citizens whatever the state and its citizens deem to be necessary for the proper function of its own sovereign society.
What an idiot. If Ron Paul is whats "good" for America as you people claim and he will do all these good deeds, why isn't he doing them now? He is a Politician. He has political clout. He could go after the Banks and Bankers now if he wanted to. He does not need the wait for the President to give him the "green light". He could start an inquiry alleging the fraud they committed and prosecute from there. What about all the other crap he is claiming he will do? As he started to actually do any of it yet??? Absolutely not. His back-story is that since he is not President, all he can do is sit around and whine and complain and collect a paycheck every month. You would have to be a complete moron to vote and support someone like this.
You can't be serious. Ron Paul fights every day in the House of Representatives to audit the Federal Reserve. He introduces a bill in each session to that effect, and also to abolish the Fed. Unfortunately, he gets no support from his colleagues.
Also, with respect to "collecting a paycheck," he is the only rep to return a portion of his congressional office budget each year.
Ok, let's think about this. Hmmm...no support from his colleages on such pressing issues as dumping the Federal Reserve and the IRS. Gee...I can't imagine WHY...
or maybe rupaul
Ah, then Lyndon LaRouche's announcement must be coming right up!
Paul is a Libertarian, which is just a made up word to replace "Anarchist", because "Anarchist" wasn't market-testing well.
One has to wonder how he can reconcile his hatred of government with his perpetual desire to rule ours.
Ron Paul is living in the past and I for one do not want to go there. We would all be driving a horse and buggy on dirt roads, we would have no electricity or running water, no phones much less computers, no health care or retirement security, the man is living in a dream world.
Seriously? If Ron Paul is elected President, we all lose our cars? This is just inane.
What an asinine statement. First off, he is right about healthcare, there is no constitutional ground for the Feds to provide healthcare, or Medicare, or Social Security. If the States want to that, they have the Constitutional right to, not the Feds. And if you think the idea of preserving personal liberties and limiting the govt would put us back into the 18th century, than you are dumber then your post would lead people to believe.
There is no Constitutional ground to have a standing army either although there is a provision for the establishment of a navy. In fact, the greatest fear was a federal army that could overpower the individual state militias - hence the 2nd Amendment.
What a Kook, a small percentage of our neighbors put up Ron Paul campaign signs last time around. The general characteristics of this group were militants, pot growing hippies, and the mentally ill who were on government disabilitiy. I hope Ron Pauls announcement is that he got a spot on Dancing with the Stars or an interview to be on the Apprentice with Donald Trump........................
Right. Let's just call him names. No point in discussing the issues.
redblack, you just attach to others posts like a parasite as seen just on this page. You are an argumentaive A-Hole who supports Ron Paul which further clarifies the gene pool of his voting base.............
or maybe rupaul
or maybe rupaul
How about Tom Green?
Once again, like any and all politicians, he is neither completely right or completely wrong in his approach. There are a lot of good ideas that he brings as well as some that just won't fly. The problem with our system is that it forces us to choose a candidate based on just a few items that are in focus at the time. For example, the religious right had their influence bolstered at one point but not so much now. We need candidates who have shown an ability to work well with others and compromise and get things done. Our primary system does not allow this since only the hard core of the party takes primaries seriously. Notice how the Tea Party actually hindered the Republicans ability to gain seats because they were too hard core. Senator Reid kept his seat as a direct result of this. He was terrible but his opposition was fatally flawed.
If men like Ron Paul can take the better parts of their agenda (limited, efficient government, using our military for DEFENSE only, balancing the budget, eliminating ALL tax breaks) and blend them with the workable parts of the broader Republican and Democratic agendas, then maybe this country could move forward. But I'm afraid the system is not set up that way. We have to be partisan and we have to try and force every agenda item down the throats of our opponents. Unfortunately,,,, THAT's the American way.
Agree. this all or nothing crap sucks.
Uh, no, unlike most politicians he's pretty much wrong just about all the time. Hard to find someone more ridiculous (ok, maybe Trump...but at least he's entertaining.)
It's hard to find another politician with the intellectual honesty of Dr. Paul. He is nothing if not principled. This is his draw for me. I may not agree with every stance, but at least I know that he is consistent in his, and won't be swayed by political winds. This may not be a formula for presidency, but it sure does garner a lot of respect. I only wish we really *could* have a principled leader in the office of President, but, as I am sure you are aware, this doesn't seem to be possible.
Why aren't more people starting to think this way?
@AP: I don't think you have anything to base your comment on other than the fact that he is not a Democrat.
"I would like to take this opportunity to announce that I am disowning my son, Senator Rand Paul of Kentuckahickey. He is an idiot."
What? From where I sit, you look like the idiot.
In theory I can understand and accept many libertarian concepts. In reality, most people who profess to be libertarians veer toward positions that can hardly be called libertarian. And also in reality, any politician must be willing to accept negotiation and compromise and show respect for beliefs different from his own, something sorely lacking among a majority of high profile politicians these days.
I cannot conceive how Ron Paul can reconcile his libertarian beliefs with his anti-abortion beliefs or his support for a constitutional amendment for school prayer or his support for government supported Christian schools. I also don't think his foreign policy positions are realistic or viable in today's world economy. I think that most people who look beyond the sound bites and speeches of Ron Paul will be rather shocked at what they will find.
I do think he is sincere in his views; he has virtually no chance of getting the Republican nomination or being much of a force as an independent; and frankly there are many worse candidates out there.
myopinion: You have compelled me enough to take you seriously and do some more research for myself. You have indeed pointed out some things that I have a problem with so it is time for me to start doing some real digging.
Ron Paul is the best choice for America. Please do your research. Do not listen to those who want to paint Dr. Paul as anything less than what he is -- a great American that has intellect about the ecomomy, foreign policy and civil rights. Research his record and educate yourselves to see beyond any propaganda.
Whoa...ease up on the cool-aid. The man has been around a long time...he's not exactly unknown. Maybe he's got a very deserved reputation as an irrelevant kook because he's an irrelevant kook. Educate yourself.
Lots of name-calling here, but I don't see anything substantive. Why don't you enlighten us?
Many, many people -- also many who vote -- have no idea who the man is or what he stands for. Folks who get the majority of their information from television news are unlikely to have an informed opinion.
You seem to think that you do, in fact, have an informed opinion, but you have failed to present it. Care to?
Are you happy with the economy?
Do you support the wars?
Do you agree with the government bailing out failing banks and corporations, while letting ordinary citizens lose their homes and go bankrupt?
Are you satisfied with the safety you received (from terrorists) in exchange for the constitutional rights you sacrificed?
Do you think we are winning the War on Drugs?
Do you think the current rate of unemployment is acceptable or unavoidable?
Are you happy with the value you are getting for the taxes you pay?
Do you think the federal government has had a positive impact on the state of education in this country?
Do you support the Federal Reserve's strategy to dilute the value of the dollar, even if it means paying higher prices for groceries and gasoline?
Which of your favored politicians or parties offers any meaningful explanations and solutions to these issues? If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and expecting a different result, then tell me, who are the crazy ones?
Wow!!! That is really calling them out. Notice the flood of replies answering the list of questions you posed [sarc]
I really think the libertarians should be a third choice. If Paul is the leading libertarian candidate they should find a way to get him on the ticket with those credentials. He could better expand his philosophy if he were not trying to fit into the republican framework.
Generally speaking, "Libertarians" are already the third choice, if they are lucky.
More often, they come in fourth or fifth.
Gee, do you suppose maybe they should actually get off their asses and organize an actual political party? Or, is organizing antithetical to anarchists?
My brother a staunch Republican is absolutely apoplectic about the candidates that the Republicans have fielded. He's pretty much confirmed in his belief that we will see another Obama administration. Thanks for the self-destruct from the GOP.
differ: Same here, my family is long-time republicans but they have absolutely no hope in the current candidates. In 2008, my parents both voted for President Obama, and they have never voted for a Dem, but they could not in good conscience vote for McCain with Palin as VP.