I like how you back up your opinions with facts.

You must have Fox News on all the time, doncha?

UMMM -- lovecookid

You might want o get your facts straight - I'm a bleeding heart, tree hugging librul don'tcha know!

Know what they say about OPINIONS, nuff said !!!!!!

In the meantime, first the the "Boiler Room' segment was placed on the chopping clock and NOW 'The Week Ahead'? UGH!

I would like to think it was "The Real Dew Drop Inn? - The White House / Washington, D.C." comment 2 weeks ago where I compared the delusional tree house gang of political geniuses in the White House to the delusional tree house gang of FR liberal geniuses in their imaginary "Dew Drop Inn" talking about pie etc.

Of course I can't I take credit for it, I'm sure Mark and company finally just got embarrassed and nauseated by the worthless blathering Dew Drop Inn banality, despite the desperate suck-ups.

Anyway, Ron Paul articles are much, much better.

I do miss the Boiler Room.

So many questions left to be asked about why they ignore important political stories to focus on meaningless repub flubs, how they shape and frame the liberal narrative .......

Oh well.

Ross Perot would have won if he didn't have a 90 year old deaf robot for his running mate.

Ron Paul is one of the "more sane nuts" while Michelle is simply here for our amusement, and she is funny.

Naturally the clown gets the front page.

I may be a left wing nut, but right now, I'd vote for Ron Paul, given the choices. Obama's balls are too small.

Hmm, Newsvine does not always work like you think it would. So, here it is again:

Cool, thanks, Domenico. You guys rock, even when you're up to your a$$es in alligators. ;-))

Ron Paul is the only GOP candidate and the national candidate who can turn America around. If you want America to be number one, again, vote for Ron Paul. If you are tired of America having to beg and borrow money from the Chinese, Japanese, and Saudi, vote for Ron Paul. If you want "Made In America" to mean quality product at reasonable prices sold throughout the world, vote for Ron Paul.

If you want the same morass for the past 50 years, vote for the other candidates. The future of America is in your hand.

Domenico, thanks for the update. I appreciate it.

Personally I'm fed up with the elitist's endless wars, lies, corruption, greed .......

Ron Paul in 2012 and damn the torpedoes!

Yep, and Ross Perot was right on target with what he was trying to tell Americans. Just like Ron Paul is right on target.

I know there are things on which I disagree with Ron Paul...anti-regulation and oversight, return to the gold standard; but I really want out of these wars, legalization seems smart, he is not virulently anti-abortion, and I do think a FED audit (minimum) is worthwhile. I'll listen to what he has to say and might well consider voting for him if he gets the nomination. I voted for Obama, and I like Obama--but when I ask myself what Obama has done that makes me happy, I don't come up with much. I did approve of saving GM and going after Bin Laden, but he has not promoted separation b/w Religion and Government, he has not expedited our exit from the wars and overseas entanglements, he did nothing about the torture or the theft committed by financial institutions, and he has presided over a period of real wage decline, increased poverty, and job losses. Hmmm...I want to believe, but, the Presidency is used to get results, ...I'm underwhelmed.

A Messenger,

The Constitution? The federal governments most important role is protect the American people.

Ron Paul is great on a lot of issues, but he is horribly dead wrong on National Defense.

Sorry, but Paul is apparently clueless about history. His position on Iran is asinine and he appears oblivious to emerging threats / intentions.

Despite his campaign rhetoric and promises regarding Iran, Obama has gutlessly ignored the threat of their obtaining the bomb and has all but officially conceded it to them.

While I appreciate Paul's honesty and principle, two qualities the current occupant doesn't posses, the end result is still potentially disastrous, a risk America should never accept.

In addition, Obama has compromised America's ability to defend herself with the SALT II agreement. Russia is now re-arming while Obama has America dis-arming ....... even throwing away / gutting missile defense.

And despite Iran, Syria, N. Korea ..... the Middle East ...... meanwhile ......

China has just launched its first aircraft carrier in history with 2 more modern super carriers being built in the shipyards......

China has deployed the Dong Feng 21D - a state-of the-art mobile carrier killing ballistic missile system.......

China is building ballistic missile and attack subs......

They are building a fleet of missile armed fast attack boats carrying the YJ-82 supersonic, anti-ship cruise missiles.......

China is developing new anti-satellite systems.....

We have the fewest deployed warships than any other time since WW I.

How did that work out for America and the world?

They have just flight tested a new stealth fighter, the J-20.

The only thing we have that can survive and win in the new era - the F-22 - has been CANCELED.

Who has carriers and a navy in the Pacific that they could possibly be thinking of challenging.

Who is it that retains the balance, protects Taiwan, Japan, S. Korea and everything down to the Philippines?

We have fewer deployed warships than at any time since WW I.

How did that work out for America and the world?

@MV-skeptic

I'm of the impression that Ron Paul is a fairly large advocate of the free market system but if your definition of isolationism means a cease in conjuring up excuses to drop bombs where ever, whenever then I guess you're right.

I like Ron Paul, I have never said that about a politician before.

If the Media would give him the attention he rightfully deserves, even if he doesn't win the nomination he will change the atmosphere.

Obama is an ok president in my book. If Ron Paul ran against him he would have to totally change his play book. Unconventional, Atypical.

or Obama\Ron Paul

Enough PICK A PARTY politics.

Well there's a bit more wacko nonsense to Ron Paul other than his idea about junking the Federal Reserve, dismantling the IRS, Social Security and Medicare and never ever raising taxes a la Grover Norquist, as though that weren't enough. He also opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, would prohibit constitutional right to privacy for women, would legalize prostitution, and isn't too found of that separation of church and state thing. What single state in this country would he carry if under some parallel universe he ever came near the nomination?

bob-1805084

Its always easy to talk out of your rear end, but the Christian Science Monitor doesn’t have any real technical specs or the Chinese failure rate of their equipment.

Your actual knowledge of the US both weapons and history is the joke of some one who doesn’t have a clue.

But thanks for the scare tactics, Americans always need a alarmist who may keep them on their toes?

@AP-1414066

As a strict constitutionalist half of those angles are only to remain consistent to the foundation of this country. The other half is intended, with faith, that states would be responsible for their own moral well being.

Heroin and hookers for everyone!!!!

Ron Paul 2012!!!

Paul has some good ideas - BUT - his bad ideas are so bad that he will never be elected.

The idea that we should have asked permission to knock on bin Laden's door was crazy. We already lost one chance to get him when Bush was president. We had him surrounded in the mountains and backed off.

The idea that we should declare bankruptcy is insane. Our biggest debts are to ourselves - I want the debt to Social Security to be paid back not excused.

Save us from the assumption that the STATES are going to be responsible for the moral well being of Americans. We've got states like South Dakota where a woman cannot exercise her constitutional right of privacy and get a safe, LEGAL abortion because they choose to thumb their nose at the constitution. We've got states like Texas, where the current Governor makes a joke of getting around the constitution's prohibition of establishing a government religion so that his schools can teach their bibles in class and brainwash children with creationism. We've got thousands of jobs going begging in this country because company's like Siemans and Microsoft cannot hire enough skilled workers in the US who can pass basic math and science tests so they can be trained on the job and you want to follow a man who would drag us back to the dark ages and dot the country with little red school houses. The last thing this country needs in the information age is to follow an isolationist who wants to take us all back a few hundred years. No thanks. He'll be a footnote on the trash heap of history. Right where he belongs.

Oh please if you wanted heroine you could find it and prostitution is legal long as you have a camcorder and a contract.

Current Republicans idea of personal responsibility only applies to money. Family values? To those who can afford it the rest are leaches who can't afford nannies to raise their children while they tell you how to live. More like the pretend religious pecking order party.

I know I must be a liberal.

The pro life and pro casualties of war party. I have my issues with the Democrats as well just the Republicans are extremely shameless.

AP, I just graduated from high school in Texas. I was taught the theory of evolution in biology. The teacher did say it was open to interpretation though. Us republicans in Texas have never been the biggest fans of Perry, but he's 10X better than Obama. I like Bachmann too and Ron Paul. Any of them over Obama. I also like Herman Cain because he has successfully run a business. Perry's Texas has had 40% of the total job growth in recent times. I like Ron Paul because he is not afraid to say what's on his mind. I'm tired of candidates trying to ride the fence just so they get everyone's vote. That's what the elected Dems are doing. They will support any group of people or idea in order to get their votes. They claim to be for the poor. They get the poor people's vote by giving them a lifetime supply of your hard earned money. Would you vote against somebody who gives you free handouts? It's sad but true. :(

This is the joke of the Republican party. They claim they're the champions of small government, but they are not. Ron Paul really is the true Republican (by their own yardsticks) but the reality is they want large government. They just don't want Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, however the huge industrial military complex is A-OK in their book. There's one word for that, and it's hypocrites.

Domenico, you sir are a real corporate coward. "Hey I'm Dom and I'll blow my editor if he asks me to." Ron Paul won't win the presidency, this is obvious. But Ron Paul has already infected the minds of the American youth better than MSNBC, Fox News, and CNN combined. Because people like you Dommie, just plain and simply can't convince the American youth how we can expect to police the world when we can't even police our own ghettos.

@AP-1414066

Where does the isolationism fallacy fit in as a conclusion? The education shortcomings aren't evidence of past successes of our current system so if its dark ages your stressing I suppose not changing anything will get us there. If you're concerned about religion and it's affect on your right to have your fetus sucked out by a vacuum then having a single state like Maryland (where a doctor from Nebraska flies frequently to do up to 60 late-term abortions a monthhttp://journalstar.com/news/state-and-regional/article_534d8baa-6fcd-5d3f-9b44-dc3b064ca130.html ) is a better option for you than having Michelle Bachmann outlawing it nationally.

Ron Paul is an interesting candidate. I don't support many of his ideas but I thought it was a great injustice that he finished so high in Iowa and didn't get ANY media coverage. I think it is because he can't be put into either of the two political boxes we live under in America these days, Republican or Democrat.

What are his political views? Write about them Fox, MSNBC, NY Times, let the people decide.

The other candidates are quoting Ron Paul because his message has gotten out in spite of the media blackout. The difference is, Ron will actually do what he says. He can't be blackmailed or bought. That makes him much better than those in the "Top Tier".

And let's address a few of his "crazy ideas".

The idea that we should have asked permission to knock on bin Laden's door was crazy. We already lost one chance to get him when Bush was president. We had him surrounded in the mountains and backed off.

Really? I seem to remember Osama dying back in 2003, as reported by many in our government. He had liver problems, renal failure, I believe it was. Where does one plug in his dialysis machine in a cave? So did he die back then, or did he die recently? Too bad we have no evidence either way.

On the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Dr. Paul had this to say;

America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife.

And he's right. Quotas and Affirmative Action benefitted some and discriminated against others. That doesn't do much for racial harmony. I'll take freedom and less debt over more regulation and fiat money anyday.

Whoistheman: This is your argument?? Paul is better than Bachman because he would devastate only some US constitutional protections? That somewhere in this country, a woman might still, yet, be able to exercise her constituitonal right of privacy, or a school kid might still learn some science, if they happen to be lucky enough to live far enough away from a state established theocracy?

Education shortcomings are so apparant and devastating now because this isn't the 1950's if you haven't noticed. We aren't competing against ourselves anymore. We're competing with the entire world and we are not doing very well, in no small measure due to old fools like Paul who insist the enemy is national minimum standards of education and the answer is whatever the lowest standard of any individual state and their little red school house says it is.

Isolationist fallacy? If Paul's extremism held sway in this country, we'd all be speaking German.

Didn't Buchanan run on some of the same ideas Ron Paul espouses?

Rocketsfan: Congratulations on your graduation and your good common sense about your own Governor. As for the old saw about people voting for democrats because they want to vote for their own handouts...remember that (I believe incorrect assumption) cuts both ways....People also vote for their own corporate tax breaks, their own reduced oversite from regulators. There are "handouts" many would argue at all income levels, we just don't call them that unless they're going into the pockets of the poor. (In fact you'll notice some calling social security a "handout", even though workers pay into the fund their entire work lives.)

There's a reason the President was elected by huge numbers and he obviously got millions upon millions of votes from those not on any government subsidies. As for my own record, I did not vote last election for my own financial interest since I pay a huge amount in taxes and they are going up not down. I voted for this President to help reverse what I consider the disastrous two term record of the President who proceded him, and no, I do not regret that vote, since I think the more important issues go far beyond my tax breaks.

We get some rules to follow
That and this
These and those
No one knows

We get these pills to swallow
How they stick
In your throat
Tastes like gold

Oh, what you do to me
No one knows

And I realize you’re mine
Indeed a fool of mine
And I realize you’re mine
Indeed a fool of mine
Ahh

I journey through the desert
Of the mind
With no hope
I found low

I drift along the ocean
Dead lifeboats in the sun
And come undone

Pleasently caving in
I come undone

And I realize you’re mine
Indeed a fool of mine
And I realize you’re mine
Indeed a fool and mine
Ahhh

Heaven smiles above me
What a gift there below
But no one knows

A gift that you give to me
No one knows

Paul's voting record is better than all Republicans and Obama when protecting human rights and the constitution as a whole. I highly doubt the paranoia about widespread creationism over evolution in public schools is accurately reported. The abortion debate is endless as it is and having one political party fight over the prospect of gaining votes for supporting or not supporting abortion on a national level is tiresome; results will never please everyone. Dr. Ron Paul is a DOCTOR, he wouldn't have that title if he didn't learn some science. If you want to attack some republican candidates on their extreme religious beliefs go after Bachmann and Perry. The United States is responsible for 43% of the global expenditures on national defense, who in the he!! is going to mess with that? Is blowing 75% of our tomahawk missle inventory on Baghdad your non-isolationist methods at work?

rocketsfan44

I don't like Perry because he takes stimulus money to make jobs.

I don't like Bachmann because she took welfare money.

They sound like poor liberals to me! Always taking handouts and voting democrat because of this outright bribery! Oh wait. . .

The Dems are very afraid of Ron Paul, and so are the far right wing Repubs. I, myself, as a Independent am very high on Ron Paul and his so called "Radical" ideas. It is sickeningly disgusting how the rest of the right steals RP's ideas and tries to spin the words to make it seem like it was "their" ideas. The Military Complex is very afraid of Paul, as he would shut down their money making machine and put Our Country First, ahead of the greedy so and so's. I am of the belief that theidiots BlackWater and any other Gun for Hire, wants to play war, do it on some one else's private dime, not the American Tax Payers Dime. If they wanna play shoot 'em up bang, bang, fine, just don't do it on our dime. The repubs should do the right thing and nominate Ron Paul, because the other 3 or 4 idiots(Parry, Bachman, Romney, blah blah) just don't have a viable shot at running this Country.

I find hope in the fact that more and more Americans are finding out what a cancerous parasite the "Federal Reserve" is on the health of our nation.

It is refreshing that people are actually starting to listen to Ron Paul and how the effects of the "Fed" sicken our entire system. Mr. Paul is one of the very few politicians not completely corrupted by the power and money of the "Fed" and see them for the evil that they are.

For those unaware, please read some history on the formation, ownership, and vile business workings of the "Federal Reserve" and how they have bled this great country dry. Close the Fed!!!!

We get excited and confused by the flushing lights and empty rhetoric and as a result overlook what’s best for our country. We judge the book by its cover not the content!!

One can only hope that when we wake up from our “superficial” state of mind, there is still time to get things back on the right track.

Ron Paul is being ignored for the same reasons Romney is being ignored.........

Rick Perry

Perry inherited a wonderful economy from a great governor and inspite of democrats in Washington since 2007, the EPA and Obama, Texas has created more jobs than all states combined.

As a Texan I am not a Perry cheerleader but the fact is America needs Rick Perry in the white house more than any other person running at this time.

The media isn't covering him because the media is owned by congress members at this point. They know that he wants to shut most of them down and they don't want that. What do they do? They don't cover him.

I am fascinated by the responses here. One thing that we all should know by now; talk is cheap. It is the actions that count. We have absolutely no idea what Paul, Bachmann, Perry, or Romney will do in the White House, but I'd lay odds we'd be status quo.

his domestic policy go too far for mainstream Republicans (he's would be OK with legalizing drugs, including heroin, for example, if states decide to do so).

But I thought the mantra of the Republican party was less regulations and to get the government out of their life? Do I detect a double standard? They only want government out of peoples lives as long as they agree with it - kind of like the oxymoronic war against pro-choice...

I don't know, Feisty. As a former bleeding heart liberal, Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate I would vote for in 2012...AND I'd love to get the chance to do so.

I can't stand the Religious Right, but Obama has proven he isn't up to doing the job. We're still in Afghanistan, Iraq and now Libya...maybe Syria too. Not to mention his drone attacks in Pakistan. He's a warmonger like Bush/Cheney! I truly believe Ron Paul has the balls to say enough as Commander-in-Chief. As for the rest of the stuff, with Congress at an impasse, there's not much to be done.

Ron Paul 2012!

Eff the media...Americans that know your policies will vote for you!

As a Texan I am not a Perry cheerleader but the fact is America needs Rick Perry in the white house more than any other person running at this time.

Maybe he can pray for the economy like he prayed for rain in Taxes. Oh wait, that didn't work out to well.

When Goldwater ran on republican social issues against Johnson back in '64, the Republicans had their butts handed to them. Granted there are a few caveats, but this election if Perry is the nominee, will resemble '64 - hide and watch...

Thanks for the 'scoop' Domenico...

It's easy to forget we're in the dog days of summer & lots & lots of people are taking some much deserved vacay!

Enjoy your week-end! ;o)

"He is out of step with the party on foreign affairs (he’s to the left of President Obama on Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran)..."

That isn't exactly the way to describe Ron Paul. He has a NON INTERVENTIONIST concept of foreign policy. That means no Iraq type Wars for access to oil, no foreign aid in the Mideast to bribe people to be our allies. In short, we do not need to be the American EMPIRE. I agree with that non interventionist foreign policy.

I also agree with Ron Paul on the Fed. We had Alan Greenspan lowering interest rates and printing out trillions of dollars worth of paper money to fuel the Wall Street white collar crime wave we are calling a recession. Then we have Ben Bernanke following up lowering the interest rates and printing out trillions of dollars worth of paper money to bail out the white collar criminals that caused the recession. There should be no illusion about the Fed protecting America from recessions, they are protecting Wall Street only.

Alan and Ben are both ex Wall Street executives, and that's like the foxes being appointed to protect the hen house. They both knew that the recession would happen and did not intervene to prevent it from happening. I can't believe Ben can have a meeting with congressional leaders one week telling them a bail out is desperately needed or the following week there will be a global economic meltdown. The Fed should have seen this coming for a long time. If the corporations were cooking the books to hide how bad the situation was, that's against the law. Nobody is in prison and being held accountable.

This country is in denial. We are F...ing broke and no one want's to do anything about it except Ron Paul and yet he is being totally ignored. Is there any doubt that this country is on the verge of complete collapse? Wake up America.

Huskergal, you are right about the others but we know exactly what Ron Paul will do. He has been very consistent. He has always voted the way he promised and he hasn't lied to anyone. He has been predicting this financial mess for years and has not changed his platform one bit. He is the one constant in Washington.

That's why he's being ignored and the only articles you find about him in the mainstream media are about how he's being ignored.

Can you prove that Ron Paul is the only one who can do it? Or that he can do it at all?

Yes I can. If we all vote for him. The rest of them are all the same. He is our only chance.

China has just launched its first aircraft carrier in history with 2 more modern super carriers being built in the shipyards......

China has deployed the Dong Feng 21D - a state-of the-art mobile carrier killing ballistic missile system.......

China is building ballistic missile and attack subs......

They are building a fleet of missile armed fast attack boats carrying the YJ-82 supersonic, anti-ship cruise missiles.......

China is developing new anti-satellite systems.....

We have the fewest deployed warships than any other time since WW I.

How did that work out for America and the world?

Bob1805###'s-Have you seen these carriers and other scary stuff Bob?

Bob1805###'s-Have you seen these carriers and other scary stuff Bob?

Nope.

I've never seen a colon before either, read and heard a lot about them.

Why don't you and Chris open your eyes and tell me what the inside of one looks like.

What some people don't seem to understand is that the Constitution was designed to work FOR the people, not the other way around. Ron Paul is a formidable candidate if YOU are THE Constitution. If you are a person, a human being, you should know that Ron Paul would refuse to feed you a glass of water even if you were dehydrating to death because the Constitution doesn't give him the power to give you one.

I admire Dr. Paul for being one of the least corrupt people on Capitol Hill, but his idea of where the country should go is NOT an idea that is suitable in ANY way to what we're going through right now. He's deranged and he's an extremist with absolutely no regard for the well-being of Americans, as long as the Constitution prevails.

The day this country is completely devoid of social issues, of poverty, of debt crises, of healthcare-coverage issues, of corruption, of greed and big corporations stomping over the common Joe, of enemies abroad, of immigration issues, of education gaps, and of ANYTHING that the government could do for ANYONE, that day Ron Paul will be the unrivaled candidate for our Presidency. Until that day, I'd like to have a man in office who can see that taxes are a NECESSARY evil, especially when we have to pay off $15 trillion and we're sure as hell not going to achieve that by cutting spending to oblivion.

I don't like socialism, I don't like big government, and I sure as hell don't like taxes. But I'm a lover of common sense and of sacrifices being made for the betterment of the country as a whole and to ensure a better future for us and our children.

MV-skeptic said:

Voting for a person bordering on an isolationist is not a path America will benefit from.

Ron Paul just doesn't want us attacking every country like we have been doing (which has cost us trillions in the past decade!). Instead, he wants us to trade with everyone (including Cuba). How terrible!

Ron Paul just doesn't want us to be the world's police force anymore. Hardly a radical position, and American will benefit greatly from this -- just look at how the Swiss are viewed for it.

I like Ron Paul but I fear the media will continue outright ignoring him out of fear.

Ron Paul would beat Obama.

Perry has weaknesses, Romney as well. Bachmann...well she's just off the reservation and would be easy to beat.

Paul doesn't come with the social conservative baggage the others do. He mentioned it in the article, and he's right....a lot of his ideas are now mainstream.

Ron Paul = doctor. Obama, Bachman = lawyers, Romney = CEO, Perry = politician (no real job).

I trust a doctor more than any other profession listed there.

Why don't you and Chris open your eyes and tell me what the inside of one looks like.

An aircraft carrier?

Booby lotsa numbers:

So you are proposing getting into an arms race with our landlord? Good luck with that.

If these fictitious Chinese arms exist they were built with American money that you sent to Beijing every time you bought something at WalMart.

Just case he looks like a nut job don't make it so. I'll vote for Perry or Paul. Ron Paul don't look any dumber than GWB does he? I noticed the news was ignoring Ron Paul. He won't win though he ain't purdy enough.

The overlords of the democratic-publican machine has not selected Ron Paul as their puppet for President so it doesn't matter how well he performs at state fairs and network tv debates. He will be ignored by the brainwashed media so that you will forget about him.

89 percent of American voters could vote for Ron Paul in the presidential election and the electorial college would ignore that and appoint whoever the d-r machine had already tapped for the job.

Your vote doesn't count, the gov'ment does not represent you, and *America* is a lie.

Get back to work; sheeple, you are nothing but self-renewing disposable resource.

Annoy the special interest groups and the Washington crooks... Vote for Ron Paul!

electing Mike Tyson would represent real change and would also challenge the status-quo.

that doesn't make Tyson a good idea any more than it makes Paul a good idea.

And, he has the backing of the Nazi Party of America and other neo-nazi groups. He has received campaign funding from these kinds of people as well.

Here is a page with a video with some of Ron Paul's stances on things. In reply to whether or not he would have voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Acts, he said, "Yeah, but...." He followed up with his own reasons why. But the video is of interest nonetheless.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/161217-paul-says-he-would-have-opposed-civil-rights-act

@Dick Mike Tyson isn't running for president, now is he? So that logical reasoning is epic, colossal, magnanimous, gigantic FAIL. Though I think actually a Mike Tyson presidency would be widely accepted because of the depraved electorate. Even though he abused his wife and chewed on Holyfield's ear, those kinds of things are celebrated in our culture and would secure an easy path to promotion, that is why the worse get on top.

@dcpyle If I were running for president and a group of black panther's gave me money I would take it, I could do more good with their money that they gave me. Also, money is color blind, money from bad people given for good causes is acceptable. I also believe Ron Paul's message of liberty and getting the government off your backs brings all kinds of people together, you ought to look outside of your narrow presumptions, I did.

@dcpyle I happen to be black so those arguments don't stick. I have a business and if some skin heads come into MY business, I will not serve them, my business my property, my rules. See people like you only look through the eyes of a white person so look through my eyes as a black, business owner. I am linking one of my good friend's youtube vids on Ron Paul and racism. Don't freak out because he's black.

@dcpyle here is link

won't let me post youtube link so search this title.

A black man's view on Ron Paul being racist Part 1

his name is 85allthewaylive

Awesome video Jaxon I hope everyone checks this video out!

I never said anything about Ron Paul being racist.

And, if you think I am racist in any degree, you have some rather serious comprehension problems. I'd have to be racist against myself, too! That would be a hard thing to do. Of course, I guess Hitler managed to do it so who knows. I just know that I am not. I actually am glad that there is a Black man sitting in the White House. I just wish it had been a different Black man.

I have far bigger problems with Ron Paul as President of the US than his problematic stances on things that will tend to send the country into further ruin. I once wrote to him. What I got back was frightening and convinced me that he would be a very, very bad choice for America.

I wish I had kept that email. Unfortunately, I thought that after his last defeat he would go away and never run again. Bad judgment on my part, I know, but there it is. :)

@dcpyle

True you didn't say 'Ron Paul is a racist', but from what you stated in your comments about taking funds from neo-nazi groups and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, one could draw the conclusion that you implied he was a racist, it wouldn't be too far of a stretch.

I am just sick and tired of those accusations being leveled at Ron Paul, it is insulting on so many levels. Usually, I find these attacks from white people that don't have a clue on what they're talking about. They just regurgitate talking points from the msm that totally distort Ron Paul's views.

I disagree with you on Ron Paul sending us into further ruin, I mean, don't you think we already there? I hope you will take another look at Ron Paul and if you disagree, you disagree, but at least you know why you disagree.

Jaxon,

Ron Paul himself said that he would have cast a 'no' vote to the Act had he been in Congress at the time. You did not watch the video? If not, watch it again.

That Act was a big step in race relations in this country. It may not have been the panacea it was touted to be but it was a good start that was necessary at the time. Whether he himself is racist or not is between him and his God.

But, you also should be aware that he also voted 'no' whether or not to honor Rosa Parks. Personally, I think she deserved the honor that Congress wanted to give to her. But, Ron Paul voted no on that. I'm sure he had his reasons but who really knows what those reasons were but God?

We are not already in ruin yet, but Obama is sure to send us there if the spending spree continues. But, as I said above, what I got back in the email from him frightened me enough to know Ron Paul is wrong for this country. As I also said, I wish that I had saved that email. It would have come in handy right about now.

You and I will just have to agree to disagree on Ron Paul. Besides that, most of what he says is nothing more than empty rhetoric. Much of what he wants to accomplish never could be due to the checks and balances built into the Constitution. That is as it should be. I am sorry that you don't seem to be able to see that as of yet. Perhaps, if you would study the issue a little further and look deeper you might see it someday.

@dcpyle.... Why do you believe the civil rights act was a "big step in race relations"? If it was any kind of step... it was a step backwards. How did the federal government sanctioning discrimination improve anything?

"But, you also should be aware that he also voted 'no' whether or not to honor Rosa Parks." " I'm sure he had his reasons but who really knows what those reasons were but God?"

I happen to know the reason he voted no and I am certainly not a magical sky fairy. He voted no because nowhere in the constitution does it say that it is the federal governments job to pass proclamations honoring anyone. However, you might be able to make the argument that honoring military personel is part of maintaining for our defense.

Rosa Parks. She was a very brave woman. I honor her but I also know that she broke the law. She broke the law by sitting in a "Whites Only" area. However, she is a heroine. She started a movement to make all men to be created equal. She brought this country closer to the Constitution. For that alone, she should be honored.

Why are comments being removed?

Ron Paul is even crazier than the Republican/Tea Party put together. How much further can this country go over the cliff. Ron Paul has run so many times. He should wake up to the fact he is not presidential material and relates to very few Americans.

Jaxon

Surely your smart enough to know strings come attached with money.

Just take a look at Europe.

That is where we are headed if we continue with business as usual in Washington.

Europe has high taxes on people and businesses, especially anyone with wealth.

Sound like a Democrat idea? It is.

They have endless regulations.

Sound like a Democrat idea? It is.

They have massive handouts/entitlements.

Sound like a Democrat idea? It is.

They have Gov't run healthcare.

Sound like a Democrat idea? It is.

So what have all those Democrat ideas done to Europe?

Europe is on the brink of collapse. The strongest European economy, Germany, has zero percent growth. Many of the other nations have debts that would exceed income to pay back. Yes, their Gov'ts spent so much money that there isn't enough money to pay the debts.

Ron Paul, or any of the Republican candidates will stop the madness that is big Washington. (Of course Ron Paul would do it the fastest, saving us trillions in interest).

Ron Paul voted no on a plated plaque for Rosa Parks, and even explains why. He did not feel it was right to use taxpayer money to honor her. He then offered money out of his own pocket and encouraged his colleagues to do the same.

You see, Ron Paul takes his oath to honor the Constitution seriously. What a breath of fresh air in this political climate.

If one wants to argue that Ron Paul and others like him hold specific views that are crazy, that's certainly reasonable. But those who make that claim virtually always hold views at least as crazy, and devote themselves to one of the two political parties that has, over and over, embraced insane, destructive and warped policies of their own. The reason the U.S. is in the shape it's in isn't because Ron Paul and the rest of the so-called "crazies" have been in charge; they haven't been, at all. The policies that have prevailed are the ones which the two parties have endorsed. So where does the real craziness lie?

So what have all those Democrat ideas done to Europe?

Europe is on the brink of collapse. The strongest European economy, Germany, has zero percent growth

BS. It had more to do with shifting to a standard currency. Everything you see now in the EU was predicted sometime ago, but the US running up a bill and then refusing to pay for it, which Paul voted against, wasn't - hence our AAA downgrade.

Tea Parties are for little girls with imaginary friends.

John Doe - the UK still uses the pound. They had to drastically cut Gov't spending or face default themselves.

So much for your currency theory.

It doesn't matter what currency it is in - Gov't overspending is the problem.

Of course, when the Central bank prints too much money, like the Fed, and the value of out money goes down 12%, every single person pays for big Govt.

we don't need anyone who follows any "ism". not communism, not fundamentalism, not liberalism, not conservatism, and not libertarianism. Any ism is just a prism through which the adherents view the universe. And the effect of that prism is to distort reality. followers of communism see everything as class struggle, fundamenatalists think there's a guy up in the clouds watching them, liberals think everyone's a victim so we should hand them money. People who adhere to the dogma of any kind of "ism" have closed minds. We should not place them in positions of power. We need leaders whose minds are not cluttered up with some "ism".

As a Black man, I would actually vote for Ron Paul.
Why????
He is REAL, PASSIONATE & ALWAYS HAD A PLAN!!!
I hate all of the ACTORS currently in our government so fake and full of it.
If you are one who continues to be real with yourself it is easy to identify others who are like you.

As far as his drug policy goes.
I agree with him!!!!
As individuals you have a right to choose what to use or not use as long as you don't disrespect others.
No one has the right to tell a grown man or woman "you can't eat this, you can't drink this, or you can't smoke this.
When you do, the attention turns to you and demands are requested from those whose choices you've stolen and before you know it they may try and take your right to choose away.

Example: You can't drill for oil in the ocean.
You can't charge interest if you loan out money.
You can't drive a vehicle it's destroying our ozone.

So the most important thing to me is the right to choose and this guy beleives in it too.
Outside of that my people are being held captive in insane conditions for trying to make a living from these products.
Not because they want to but, because they don't have many options!!!
From going to schools that provide no future opportunities like their white counterparts, to being shunned in corporate America!!!!

My belief always has been "WE HAVE A RIGHT TO SELL DRUGS!!!!"
We don't like to do it but we don't like not eating either or living on the streets either.

John Doe Jr-you're wrong. The debt ceiling was put in place to prevent so much over spending. The ceiling should never have been raised by anyone-that defeats its purpose. This current government hasn't cut anything what they are doing is cutting the projected over spending which is not really a cut at all. True cuts would be to spend less than you are bringing in not cutting over inflatted spending. If you have 100 and your budget says to spend 150 so you cut to 140 that is not a cut! That is an increase of 40. Did you skip math class the same time you skipped government class?

PS-we would have been down graded anyway because this group of elected criminals spent way too much with no additional income to support it. Thats just stupid-is that how the average citizen manages their money?

No Career Politicians - and consider this: even if all the "cuts" actually go into effect, they essentially cut $90 billion a year from a $1,600 billion yearly deficit.

So they did 1/16 of what is needed. To actually balance the budget there will have to be 15 more battles like that one, or one battle 15 times larger that the one we had.

And ironically, if the just went back to the year 2000 spending levels, we would be balanced now.

Was it that bad in 2000? Did people go around saying "the Gov't is too small" in 2000?

The media focuses everyone on current ability to pay. Debt ratings are about the ability to pay in the future when the debt is due.

Is the US in a position to pay it's debts back in 2021? That is the real question.

In about 2 months many European nations have large debt payments that come due. We need to pay close attention to what happens. It will be us in a few years if we allow the Democrats to extend their rarely unbroken 80 year rule.

@Dcpyle

I appreciate your thoughtful responses and agree we'll just have to disagree. I know Ron Paul would have voted 'no', because he saw that private property rights were going to be violated. I have read many of the founders works and believe that private property were/are vital in free societies. Ron Paul's votes always come from a strong belief in principles. I respect that. Agree or disagree with him at least it comes from a well-thought out perspective and measured against the Constitution. These other politicians take polls to see what 'their' principles are, and they change with each election cycle. I hope you find a candidate that represents you, I know I have. Peace to you Dcpyle.

@Floyd

I know with money comes strings, why do you think bankers and lobbyists don't contribute $ to Ron Paul? I'll tell you why because he can't be bought. How can a few hundred bucks from hate groups, black or white, pull any 'strings' with Ron Paul? They can't. If you saw how many corporations, industrial complexes of health, military, prison and banks contributed to the past and present candidates you'll see they are all bought and paid for. With Ron Paul he gets most contributions from individuals like me, speaking of which there is a money bomb today in honor of his birthday. My small amount of money donated today doesn't compete with the millions wall street is giving their support too, what is so ironic about that is most of those companies and banks received tax-payer bailouts from who? The government, so yes it pays to give big money to candidates because when your man or woman gets elected all that money comes right back to you.

he can't be bought.

Exactly. That's also why the media ignores him. To them and to the corpocracy, he is dangerous.

I happen to know the reason he voted no and I am certainly not a magical sky fairy. He voted no because nowhere in the constitution does it say that it is the federal governments job to pass proclamations honoring anyone. However, you might be able to make the argument that honoring military personel is part of maintaining for our defense.

Ummm, dmac? Rosa Parks is not and never was a member of the military, so far as I was aware. Have you no knowledge of the history of the Civil Rights movement??? She was deserving of a Congressional Medal of Honor for her acts on behalf of the Black community. Ron Paul said neither her nor anyone else should be recognized by Congress for heroic deeds. I disagree.

Budget cuts Northstar, budget cuts. Even the mighty MSNBC is starting to feel the pinch of the economy. It goes to show you that nobody is exempt from an economic system ready to fall back into recession again.

Just keeps going.

I think you have him confused with the Energizer Bunny.

I think you have him confused with the Energizer Bunny

You know... now that you mention it.... you never see Ron Paul and the Energizer Bunny at the same time or in the same place!!! That's proof enough for me!!! Ron Paul is really a tiny, pink, battery powered, toy rabbit!!!

The sad thing is some people won't get that this was meant to be humorous.

Northstar

AND he's 76 years old. His son was elected on 'brand' recognition; and it even crazier than the old man. Ron Paul is an EXTREME State's rights proponent, to the demise of the FEDERAL protections. He can't hide from THAT record.

Well at least the Repugs will keep us entertained with "Ron Paul and his flock of parrots"! Personally I would love to see Ron Paul leave the Repubs primary system and run as a Libertarian/Independent 3rd party candidate. Now that is a change I would love to see.

Why? Because Ron Paul is the only real Libertarian out there. The Teabaggers and Republican enablers who must appease their masters only use Libertarian concepts to gain popularity. Once they were in office, they reverted to the same old God, Gays, and Guns agenda. There are plenty of ant-abortion measures they've enacted, for example, but not one meaningful effort to create jobs.

On the mark TP. I wonder if the T Folk who support Ron Paul realize they are supporting ending our many wars, ending the war on drugs, ending the Patriot act, and supporting gay marriage. Oh Ron Paul, that crazy right-winger.

Personally I would love to see Ron Paul leave the Repubs primary system and run as a Libertarian/Independent 3rd party candidate.

Actually, Ron Paul ran for President on the Libertarian Party ticked in 1988. He was on the ballot in 46 states and the District of Columbia, and got approx. 0.47% of the votes cast - less than half a percent. That poor showing is why he shifted to the Republican party, even though politically he's still a Libertarian - the Republicans have enough political clout to actually get him into office as Congressman. I suspect that Paul is still far too Libertarian to ever win the Republican nomination, but he's not going to waste time and effort on another Libertarian Party or Independent run.

CM - It wouldn't be a wasted effort in the least. It would ensure the POTUS's re-election! Run, Ron Paul, run! As a 3rd party candidate! Obama "Four more Years" 2012!

Because Ron Paul is the only real Libertarian out there.

He is not a Libertarian. He is a Republican with Libertarian rhetoric. No more Republicans or Democrats in government! Oust them all!

Perry is a duplicitous, flip-flopping, bible-thumping hypocrite who wants to force mandatory Gardasil vaccinations on all young girls, because he has special interests in Merck, the vaccine maker. Gardasil is linked to the deaths of *at least* 53 young girls (google it). Do you want *your* children to be forced to take this vaccine? I DON'T.

And while Perry may "look" like a president, it doesn't mean he should be president. Give me substance over the outside packaging ANY DAY.

Ron Paul 2012!

You mean indoctrinating tomorrow's impressionable, irresponsible weaklings with sick, leftist ideology?

I'm gettin' in on the sandwich hugs too man.

God help us, if Leon is educating our children.

I, for one, am so tired of those people who think that military might and foreign domination, with all of its hidden agendas, is a positive thing for this country. I am sick of the war mongers. The world is ready for peace and military might is not going to take us there. We need a different way of interacting with other countries. I believe that most of them, when they are building what seems to be weapons, are only building defensive barriers not war machines. Why should we always assume that the fear that someone is coming to take away our way of life is a good umbrella to live under? I tired of fear, and tired of our people dieing in senseless skirmishes.

I think Ron Paul has most of the right ideas. At least a better grasp on what this country needs than any of the other candidates. He will get my vote.

Dr. Paul knows more economics than the rest of the pack combined and that is what scares the powers that be. That's why the incestuous relationship between the media, both parties, Wall Street, big Corporate interests, Government and oh yes, that privately held entity named the FED, don't want to give him credibility via exposure to the masses. I think they are under estimating the intelligence of Americans, the anger of Americans, and the viral power of the internet.

Oh yes, who else has put forward any reasonable plan to rid ourselves of the economic problems we are facing other than Ron Paul? No one that's who and how does that make anyone else a frontrunner? Get those brains working America and quit being Pavlov's dog.

No, he doesn't have a chance because he's a wacko. But I tink you ought to work your butt off for him and spend LOTS of time and energy on his campaign (because someone in this country might still not know where he stands on remaking the US constitution as HE views it.) By the way, having an open mind doesn't mean allowing your brain to fall out. Peace.

@associated press-1414066

No one person can have a reasonable explanation for being so hostile towards this guy so I've come to the conclusion your just a media drone armed with misinformation and slander.

LOL--that's hilarious. ...I could say the same thing about your fawning, unquestioning love of this extremist and your hyper-sensitivity to his record and his stands. I'm all FOR information on this kook...(for anyone who didn't follow his first three failed Presidential runs and still doesn't know who he is).

What can we say? His ideas get more relavent at time goes by.

He is 76 years old. He doesn't get more relevant as time goes on. He gets LESS filtered. United States not INDIVIDUAL states.

His basis for interpretation of the Constitution is EXTREME states' rights. That is NOT upholding the Constitution,...the details are on the fringe from THAT basis.

Ron Paul is as old as Moses and the right thinks that makes him their saviour! Go for it righties and enjoy your 40 years in the desert.

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it. --Thomas Jefferson

Finally someone who knows the facts as they are. Comprehension is a wonderful thing.

amen.

What logic. So if half the states in the union legalize heroin and prostitution, that's just great with you as long as the STATE government does it and not the federal?? Ron Paul is all for honoring the constitution unless it interferes with what he doesn't like about the constitution (voting rights, privacy rights extended to women, citizenship rights for those who are born here). This old "state's rights" argument isn't smelling any better than it ever has. And he's a walking hypocrite. He's all for 'fiscal responsibility' until it comes to bringing in the pork for his own district. And you guys worship the ground he walks on because he rants about collecting taxes! He's irrelevant. He's always been irrelevant and there's a damn good reason for that (shockingly it is not that people don't know enough about the kook after all of his goes at the presidency. It's that they know him enough to know what he is.

"So if half the states in the union legalize heroin and prostitution, that's just great with you as long as the STATE government does it and not the federal??"

Yes, because quite frankly, the culture and moral values in Wyoming are different from those in Connecticut. Why should there be one over reaching authority telling 300 million people spread out over 5,000 miles how to live?

yale: Prostitution contrary to your assumption isn't just a "moral" issue, it's a human rights one. There's a reason for the sex trade and there's a reason we fight its growth as a civilized society. There's also a reason we do not put things like civil rights up to majority votes. Did you not learn about the 'tyranny of the majority' well before you got to grad school? Did you not learn of the concept of "greater good" in about 5th grade, and about the reason we pay taxes for schools (even though we may not have children) or pay taxes for roads and highways (even though we don't drive on them)? It may all sound theoretical to you, but these are real lives you're talking about throwing to the whims of whatever state they happen to be in. The US Constitution covers every last one of those citizens wherever they live in this country whether the people in those states agree with those constitutional rights or not.

While reading these posts about State Rights over Federal Government a few thoughts come to mind. Interstate laws would become a nightmare if every state had a different law. I would think there should be some nationalization of interstate trade, food quality, insurance for instance, I am sure there are many areas that I can't think of at this late hour.

But it might be fun to let The States decide things for themselves. A real Darwinian race. Those states who want to teach creationism and ignore science, let them. We will see which school districts get lower ratings for college acceptance. It would be chaos and the environment would really go to hell in a hand basket with states rights. But who cares. We can better represent who we are as people rooting for our favorite sports team. I am from Oklahoma, we don't allow anyone from a foreign country. I am from California, we have the largest free trade marijuana out of any State. Go Go Go Alabama, we don't think Keynesian economics even exists for consideration. Oh, that list goes on and on.

In 50 years we will see how it all shakes out. Deregulate everything and let the States decide. Hahahah. This post was not intended to disrespect or insult anyone who doesn't understand sarcasm or satire. It is meant to talk to intelligent people.

@associated press-1414066

Is forcing the twice democratically elected Haitian president Aristide to leave his country; the poorest country in the western hemisphere a cause for the greater good of the world or the United States? Were their votes considered the 'tyranny of the (voting) majority' of a sovereign nation? Why did the US so strongly oppose the raise of their minimum wage of their factory workers? Did you know that many women in Taiwan actually prefer being in the sex trade rather than having a job in a factory there?

http://www.haiti-liberte.com/archives/volume4-46/Haiti%20Liberté%20to%20Release%20Some%202000%20Secret%20.asp

I was waiting for that insepid argument that the sex trade is actually "preferred" by some women (between 65% and 85% of sex workers entered sex work as children, that is before the age of consent, and suffered sex abuse as children.(US Census Bureau). I have no idea how any of this would have been prevented by Jean Bertrand Aristide.

Nice sidestep but the second half of the questions points to how the poorest of populations will help the trade flourish around the world. To me I'd prefer to stop that kind of intervention which would, in turn, improve their living standards and reduce the attractiveness of the sex trade. At the same time Levi's and Hanes would be hurt enormously (yah right) by paying the destitute Haitians something like $3.00 a day.

Don't explain it to AP he/she can't can't get past the bumper sticker slogan candidate. It sounds like to much thinking and research for AP.

AP-1414066

yale: Prostitution contrary to your assumption isn't just a "moral" issue, it's a human rights one. There's a reason for the sex trade and there's a reason we fight its growth as a civilized society.

The fight against prostitution is going about as well as the war on drugs. But we continue fighting and continue repeating the same actions that have never worked in the past, all the while thinking like a naive child that one day they will. Unfortunately, they never will, and the drug supply and global human trafficking will continue. There are reasons to keep both illegal though. Of course it would be nice if the legalized drug dealers known as the alcohol industry didn't have any competition. (And it's good to remember that Prohibition in its time worked about as well as the current war on drugs.) In any event, making both legal would lessen crime, bring in tax revenue, and make prostitution, at least, a bit safer for anyone who chose to go that route.

On a side-note, there's really no reason to bring the morality argument in on this, since morality is a subjective matter. And "human rights?" Keeping prostitution illegal isn't doing anything about lessening that, since the human trafficking trade is doing just fine. The reason these things are happening is because they are in demand. It would be nice to think that we live in a "civilized society," but obviously that's just a dream and not reality. If it were reality, there would be much less demand for these things, or at least a tolerance for them. In any event, does it really matter if society is civilized? Someone who is truly civilized, (if that is indeed possible; perhaps enlightened would be a better word), wouldn't be so concerned with that question, since they would have their own inner peace. In other words, they would be wise enough to know that it would be futile to try and force their ideals upon others. Buddhists don't force their ideas on others; they only offer suggestions, and invite individuals to question those suggestions. But it's far easier just to try and fight these things, rather than to actually think about and reflect on if our actions are having any affect. Of course all evidence points to the fact that they're not. But keep hoping.

@AP-1414066 Wow, all abortion is okay, but prostitution is wrong. *face-palm* I suppose you don't support the death penalty either.

Prostitution is morally wrong.

Abortion is morally wrong.

The death penalty is morally wrong.

So, why are two of these legal, the other, not?

If prostitution were legal, there would be less exploitation of those involved- as they would have legal protections currently denied them.

There are federal laws that address slavery and things like the Mann Act, but I don't believe there is a federal law against prostitution, per se. It has been left up to the states. It is legal in certain counties in Nevada. This system works fine.

NJNB - There are selective laws regarding morality issues in this country. As you pointed out, not all laws are equal. When I was in my teen years in the 70's I used to wonder why pot was illegal. It made no sense to me because alcohol was legal. Alcohol impairs one's reasoning ability where pot allows you to think and act somewhat coherently. You can't OD on pot but you can become so drunk you lose memory, and if you drink too much it can kill you. The lesser of the two evils is pot by far. I never could figure out why there were such strict laws against pot.

George Washington grew it on his plantation... He listed hemp as one of the crops he planted in his personal records. I realize it was used for making rope, but its still the same plant. I don't think he used it for entertainment.

American Indians smoked peyote... but it's illegal now. It appears as though all substances that create a sense of euphoria not prescribed are illegal except alcohol. Is this a moral issue, or a practical issue? Or, is it a control issue?

Brian, I don't smoke pot, and never really have. The reason it's illegal is obvious. You can grow it yourself very easily, therefore it would be difficult to tax.

While what you say is true Ben... currently the government gets no tax benefit from it now. If it were grown on farms, processed, packaged and sold, the government would be able to tax it every step of the way... pretty much like they do with every product sold in this country now. Also, if it were sold in convenience stores, who would grow it anyway? It would be much easier to pick up a pack of MJ Highs than to cultivate it, wait for it to grow, etc. BTW, I haven't touched it in over 35 years... but I'm not against people using it and it would be a boost to the tax revenue.

This is true, but it would take a chunk out of the tax revenue generated by alcohol sales, and probably tobacco also. I'm not against it either. I'd rather not be around it when others are using it simply because of the smell and when you're the only one who isn't it's kind of boring watching others. There is the theory also that the federal government is the largest importer of the stuff and just uses the DEA to keep the monopoly....

If pot were legalized a whole new market would open up.The people who grow it would be tax exempt,farmers dont pay sales tax.People are afraid of change that's why the economy is in sad shape,the FED is out of control with to much control,we don't want to be controled,Ron Paul has my vote

No Jo, No bo, NJ

Abortion is legal because that is a person's choice to carry or not to carry another individual.
If you aren't willing to finish their pregnacy by carrying the uborn child or take care of the child for those aboting then...
Put up or shut __!!!
Also, you can't kill what has not been born yet.
Saying the baby is alive is incorret because if it were so, it would not need the person aborting it to survive.

If you can carry the child and take care of it then you did the honorable thing.
But, the right to choose for self outweighs what you want others to do based on your beliefs.
Those are your beliefs not someone else's.
I would like to say that you are being honorable by caring for the unborn children and selfless but, until you start providing options to potential mothers having abortions your opinion is just that. Your opinion.
We all have them that is why we are individuals ruling our own lives.
Now we all must focus on ourselves and lead by example and not through force!!!!

Well, if nothing else then, Ron Paul should get the votes of the pimps, hookers and drug addicts.

The truth is that the majority of cocain users are white collar workers.

Peel-Layer: I don't usually quibble over spelling and grammatical errors but your's were so bad that I couldn't understand your point, other than ranting and raving over NJNB saying abortion is morally wrong.

Now I'm pretty sure the point she was trying to make was to point out the hypocrisy of abortion AND the death penalty (which you failed to mention) are both morally wrong to a lot of people yet they're still legal, while prostitution, which is also morally wrong to a lot of people is still illegal.

BTW sorry I'm late but Happy Birthday Dr. Paul!!

Ron Paul 2012!

Shame on the media!!! Despite your lame attempts, Ron Paul is still at the top 3 nationally. Why don't you talk about how Santorum, Huntsman, and Cain don't have a shot at winning.

In real news, Ron Paul raised 1.7 million dollars in one day despite a cyber attack on his website. Cover that you goons.

Right, but the article leaves out an extremely important part of his answer - it states simply that he supports legalization of drugs, not state rights. It's a matter of missing the forest for the trees and journalists these days have a real knack for it.

That may be, but the accuracy is certainly appreciated. :) Thank you very much.

You obviously don't get the difference3 between ending the UnConstitutional Drug War (please point to it in the Constitution; right, you can't), and State's LEGALLY deciding whether those drugs would be legal. The federal government isn't legalizing anythiong but THE RULE OF LAW in the CONSTITUION. Your bias is on your sleeve.

It is not "legalizing" anything to end an ILLEGAL law. There is a difference between lawful and legal. The Drug War was NEVER lawful, as it is extra-Constitutional. This is plainly a State's jurisdiction.

So, I'd ask you to educate yourself. Try reading once in a while. Start with the Constitutions enumerated powers.

He would legalizie drugs by letting the States decide as they should lawfully...what a bit of spin.

And this the Left today? You cowards. Definately not journalists, that's for sure.

God forbid we let States decide drug laws. God forbid we let States decide economic rules. God forbid we let States decide any number of issues NOT in the Constitution. All of which, BTW, are NOT in the enumerated powers of the Constitution and should have been left to States to begin with.

But you don't care about the Constitution. You support a guy who is in 5 wars after inheriting three, won't end torture or domestic surveilance that tramples the 4th Amendment, won't end secret prisons, won't end the Patriot Act as a whole, won't end the Drug War (usually a leftist argument), etc.

The hypocrisy of the Left and their faux journalists make me sick...and the Right is no better. A bunch a statist propagandists. Good job Goebbels.

Read Sicilian history is you need any other reasons to be anti-State, Montanaro...you seem to have forgotten your roots (assuming you're a Greek/Italian/Sicilian American; and if you're Hispanic it should also be "self-evident"). But it's WHO'S in power, not power itself, RIGHT? LOL. GTFO.

Wake up, or all you are is a parrot for the State...Domenico want a cracker?

He's for legalizing frugs...lol...wow, that's just hillarious. Way to misconstrue a very simple Constitutional position.

I'm for the States having this choice, and I'd VOTE TO NOT LEGALIZE THEM in my State! In your world apparently the two cannot co-exist.

Can you write something on how it's tyranny to tell someone what to do with their own person when they aren't harming any other non-willing particpants with their actions? No, of course not. You think it's tyranny to allow McDonalds to sell toys in Happy Meals.

My how far we've fallen. This is why I'm moving to Uruguay in December. The people here have lost their minds. They worship Statism as if it's a God.

It's true that he would be in favor of the legalization of drugs if that's what states decide.

According to that logic it is also true that he would be in favor of outlawing drugs if that's what states decide. How can he be in favor of both?

The only truth is that he would be in favor of the states deciding for themselves, not necessarily in favor of their decision. A very big difference from what you perceive.

This is why I'm moving to Uruguay in December.

.......and we're gonna' nail the door shut when you leave.

And you'd just love it if we let the states decide who can vote, who can hold property, who can be educated, who can be a citizen? No thanks. We're not Europe and we're not going to become Europe. These are the UNITED States and the founders knew damn well what they were doing. That's why Ron Paul is a joke.

AP, a lot of those issues you present are already covered by the Constitution - the states wouldn't be permitted to overrule the Constitution. But the Founding Fathers (and I agree with you there; they did know quite well what they were doing) wrote this into the Bill of Rights regarding state rights:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The federal government, by their design, is meant to have limited powers. Issues such as property ownership, citizenship, suffrage, etc. are defined by the Constitution and therefore not subject to state decisions. If every state was intended to be the same, why have states at all? You put the emphasis on "United"; one could just as easily place it on "States". I believe our Founding Fathers made allowances for both in the Constitution. Ron Paul is hardly a joke for wanting to honor this.

We're talking about what Ron Paul's version of the US constitution is, and he has said openly and repeatedly how he would change that constitution. You seem to forget how far the states pushed to define for themselves every one of those issues before the COURTS ruled what the constituiton did or did not say(and that took, in some cases, many courts and many, many years.) Paul has said he wants the consitution changed so that women are not covered under it's privacy rights and therefore can be prohibited by state governments from getting legal abortions. He has said he wants the constitution changed so that children who are born in the United States no longer are citizens if their parents aren't. He has said he is against the voting rights act, the very act that courts used to prohibit states from using their own powers to keep out voters they did not want. Do I think any of what Ron Paul wants will actually happen? Of course not...precisely because Ron Paul is an extremist who has no chance at all of winning the nomination by any US state. Do I think such extremism is therefore harmless because its all theoretical? No. Not as long as there are those who would throw individual rights up against the state and think its a fair fight.

In 1992, when I was 18, I voted for Bush. I chalk that up to inexperience and lack of understanding due to a young "the world is mine for the taking" mind. If I could do it over again, I wouldn't have voted.

Since 1992, predominately in my twenties, I have not cast a vote for anyone. I chalk that up to gaining some bit of understanding and knowledge of the truth that those who seek power, whether they have a D or R by their name, are not on my side nor share my "love your neighbor" views. If I could do it over again, I would do the exact same thing.

As a small business owner (my wife and I only), in 2008, I cast my first "real" vote against what I believed to be a very wrong path that would lead to my neighbor and I being forced into a belief system that we knew would hinder our progress as neighbors. I held my nose and voted for McCain/Palin. A mistake? No, but definitely not the right decision. I chalk that up to acute wisdom, but I'm not happy about making that difficult choice.

This year, at 37, I will donate money to a Presidential candidate(s) for the first time. Seeing the evolution of government for 20 years as an adult has brought me to this lowly(enlightened) point in my life. I chalk that up to reason, logic, selfishness, selflessness, seasoning, and flowering wisdom.

Herman Cain and Ron Paul are two men I can call my neighbor. Good luck to both of these fine men.

Simple, how could voting for McCain/Palin lead to a better relationship with your neighbors?? Your post is not very clear. For me, I couldn't stomach voting for that ticket because Palin was/is simply scary. She's unable to articulate her thoughts clearly in English, she lacks knowledge of the world outside of Alaska and especially the U.S., and she stokes fear and spreads untruths ("pals around with terrorists", "death panels", for example). If McCain had picked someone like Liebermann or even Romney, I might have considered voting for him. He just completely dropped the ball by picking her as his running mate.

Herman Cain seems like a good man who knows a lot about business. I think he has a similar problem, though--he lacks a broader view of the world. The best thing about Paul is his stance on the wars--I totally agree with him there--but this is probably where he gets in trouble with "establishment" Republicans. His thoughts on civil rights and women's rights don't sit well with me, either. Right now, I have to say that I'm not very excited about this year's election.

bethie,

I did not say voting for McCain/Palin would lead to a better relationship with my neighbors. You inferred that. I said voting for the other choice would hinder our progress as neighbors. Knowing now the increase in divisiveness over the last 2.75 yrs, was I wrong?

Herman Cain has a sound view of what it takes to be a neighbor. Does that fall short of how neighbors in other countries expect or deserve to be treated? We are all equal no matter what country we call our home.

Ron Paul is somehow against civil rights or women's rights? Please provide evidence from his own mouth or actions that supports this claim.

@AP1414066- You stated "He has said he wants the constitution changed so that children who are born in the United States no longer are citizens if their parents aren't." If you go read the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution, keeping in mind that it was written after the Civil War to protect the recently freed blackman, at a time when the U.S. had no immigration policy, you would understand why people like Ron Paul and myself agree that children born in the U.S. to ILLEGAL immigrants should not be U.S. citizens but citizens of their parents legal country. Pregnant women are coming to the U.S. illegally just to have their children so they can be Americans. They want the services offerred to American citizens. They want free education, medical, dental and other. This country can not and should not keep paying for the birth of these children as well as 18 years of their lives.

Some laws have to me made in order to protect the idiots.

That's part of the problem,the government is trying to make everything idiot proof.they try to protect us from everything,I,m not an idiot and am sick of being treated like 1.

Ron Paul believes there should be no EPA, no clean water regulations, no air pollution enforcement, no restrictions on land development, no government support for education or research, no civil rights act, no consumer protection laws. no food inspectors, no public education. If Ron Paul's philosophy had been the law of the land since 1960, the USA would be unrecognizable. Pelicans and bald eagles would be exinct, urban sprawl would prevail everywhere, we would not have put a man on the moon. You'd have porn shops next to elementary schools. The wealth distribution would be even more highly skewed to the few wealthy and powerful. Any "ism" is just a mental straighjacket that interferes with clear thinking. Libertarianism, communism, fundamentalism, liberalism, conservatism. I'm an AntiIsmist.

I'm all for getting out of these nation-building wars and bringing our soldiers home, however, I wonder how many are reservists whose civilian jobs are no longer there.

I'd like to remind you that isolationism didn't work for the US too well the last time we tried it. (and yes, it's called isolationism, even if your hero insists it's really called something else.)

Wow you are trollin' big time are you a government shill or something?

AP, I'd love to hear your rationale behind that post.

How is maintaining healthy trade relations, without any special preferences given, to ALL countries "isolationism"? LOL. Isolationism is something like Japan did before the 1870's - NO relations whatsoever with other countries. Ron Paul does NOT support that idea. Come on man, this is elementary stuff.

The correct term is "non-interventionism". Do you know the history of the GOP up until the 1960's? It's only recently that the GOP (and liberals as well, really) have become war hawks.

Rothbardian: On what planet do you live that the US could maintain any kind of trade balance with ALL countries equally with no "special preferences" while they of course continue special trade relations? Let's see you negotiate that one with China. Leave the UN? Leave NATO and then label it "non-intervention"?? Tell Iran, as Paul says he would do, that their affairs are of no concern of ours?? You should learn the difference between elementary and simplistic.

Angry: good moniker. Really that painful for you to see someone who loves their country. Geez that's pathetic.

I don't feel that our military engagement in the Mid-East over the last decade has made us any safer, in fact it's left us much weaker. Certainly we should have focused 100% of our objective in the hunt for Bin Laden and nothing more. We have galvanized and perhaps created a new generation of US haters with our actions over the last decade.

We had seen major changes in China , the fall of the USSR and re-emergence of East Europe nations that the only effective and lasting societal changes occur when the people are ready for it and the masses rise on their own. Although our policies during the cold war helped bring it about, it was when the people rose did it take effect.

This year we have seen that change to begin in the Mid East in the youth and the have nots in many countries. If we had left Iraq alone they may have been one of the participants, we may have seen or been able to eventually assist with an internal coup. Iran may be different today as well had we left Iraq alone. Big changes in the Mid East will occur on their own internally, we can't shape their societies as we see fit, it is weakening us here at home. It's not too late to change this we just need to phase ourselves out of the region, and focus on making our own country safer domestically. As the "Iron Curtain" of Old rule monarchies and governments fall and or change we may then eventually be able to have productive trade and diplomacy relationships with them in the future.

How is maintaining healthy trade relations, without any special preferences given, to ALL countries "isolationism"? LOL. Isolationism is something like Japan did before the 1870's - NO relations whatsoever with other countries. Ron Paul does NOT support that idea. Come on man, this is elementary stuff. The correct term is "non-interventionism".

The correct term is "appeasment". If faced with a would-be world conqueror, Ron Paul would do just like Neville Chamberlain did - make nice, set up free trade deals, and proclaim "peace in our time". It didn't work with Hitler, and it won't work with Al Qaida and other terrorists.

If Ron Paul had been in office in 2001, Congress would have had to declare war against Al Qaida and the Taliban without him, probably would have to over-ride his veto to do so. His non-interventionist approach wouldn't have done any good.

Sure, bring the troops home and watch Iran take over Iraq. Not a smart idea at all.

I don't believe you, Jonathan-3943551. Anyone on here can say, "I did this but now I'm going to do that.", and it would be impossible to prove it. You give no more credibility to your post by saying that, and you actually take away credibility. My impression, right or wrong, is that you are just saying you voted for President Obama to try and make your 'conversion' more credibile. It has had the opposite effect.

Then I guess we must leave troops there for all eternity, sanction Iran for the same duration, and prolong the ingnorance.

Has anyone noticed that in 2008, all the GOP candidates (except Paul, of course) were in favor of extending Bush's wars? And now that it turns out Obama didn't end them, in 2012, all of the GOP candidates, including people who supported them in 2008, want to end the wars?

That is called "taking whatever position Obama doesn't have out of pure spite." Ron Paul is consistent. Vote for him.

Hitler was consistent too. I wouldn't call that great logic.

Ah, the time-honored rebuttle which crosses all parties and ideologies. When you're losing an argument...invoke the name of Hitler. Way to keep it fresh, AP.

Failed to follow the logic, eh? I can see why you think that's "losing" the argument (and who cares...he's not winninbg any elections.) Ok, here's one you might like better: "Consistency is the hobgoblins of little minds".

Jonathan, I too am disappointed that more progress hasn't been made on bringing the troops home although some troops have come home from Iraq. It seems to still be one of Obama's main goals (to end the wars). I need to hear more from him on this. If Paul is not the nominee, will you be voting for a Republican candidate who isn't interested in ending the wars? Also, what other issues are important to you when voting? IMHO, it's important not to be a one-issue voter.

When he steps far LEFT of Obama, he is scarier than a CooCoo Clock for President. It's as though his brain flies out the window, leaving a very unsound clown sputtering goof ball ideas. He makes Obama's foreign policy look good and that makes ya want to vomit.

Uh, right. Don't quit your dayjob to become a shill for whatever.

Day job? On heroin? I seriously doubt they can hold down a day job when they are whacked out on heroin.

Our troops are helping protect peasant Afghan farmers who cultivate opium, the base of heroin. This is admitted. That's why we're there. Oil, money and dope. Money borrowed at interest from the private central bankers to fund the whole imperial conquest. Oil and its pipelines secured to fuel the wasteful slave consumer global moron economy. Dope for export to rich nations to ease the pain of living in such a trashed world, which provides a black market cash bonanza... but they'll throw you in jail for having a joint of marijuana, only to borrow more money to pay for your incarceration, attorney...

F the machine. Ron Paul 2012.

Not isolationist, rather non-interventionalist. Big difference. Basically, what he means is butt out of other nations sovereign affairs and simply have trade relations with them. Look where our constant involvement with other nations' affairs got us. Want to help other nations? Donate to private charities that do that.

And Ron Paul isn't running on a libertarian platform. His views take root in libertarianism, but he deviates from purely libertarian philosophy - he doesn't endorse open borders like libertarians do. He doesn't endorse amnesty.

Ron Paul believes that the Federal government's reach should not extend beyond the functions mandated by the US Constitution! How is that going to make us become a Somalia? That's to say our Constitution is wrong? Think about that.

Earlyout-

We are headed there with or without Ron Paul. You think things are going to turn around with Obama II, Perry, Bachmann (ahhh!), Palin (2x ahhh!), x, y, z...

Corporate America I think has already chosen Obama for a second term. I think the GOP is just finding someone who wants to get some attention (fame, money, etc) and make it seem like this will be a contest (when in fact its more of a rigged "American Idol"...)

No, I'm just saying that a 19th Century interpretation of our Constitution would be a disaster for a 21st Century nation.

You mean a 21st century Empire! and no it would not be good for them.

"gigantic version of Somalia"

Never saw it quite that way, but yeah that's scary. Just reading and that caught my eye.

Your assumptions crack me up. No president takes office and then the next week heroin is legal, our troops are home, and all the other bullsh*t people throw out there. We have three branches of government for a reason.

What the two parties are afraid of is NEW IDEAS and an honest politician who can stand on his record for 30 years. That's what their fear is.

RON PAUL 2012 - A CONSTITUTIONAL PRESIDENT FOR THE CONSTITUTIONAL PARTY

Right Denis: and when Iran bombs Israel to smithereens, your Dr. Paul would shrug. When women and children become even more victimized by the sex trade, your Dr. Paul would shrug and say "state's rights". Show me the one state in the union that Paul could carry. Show me the state clamoring for legalized prostitution, heroin, the end of social security, and medicare. We don't need another nut job masquerading as a leader, just because he promises you never have to pay for anything ever again.

Israel can take care of itself. The sex trade is a world-wide problem and though it is sad we cannot continue to be world police anymore. I am throwing pearls to the swine here because if you can't see that we cannot continue with the stauts quo of Bush and Obama's presidency then I am wasting my breath.

I'm sick of the whole dragged-out puppet show. We all know the president's bought and paid for. He's a floorwalker, a podium jockey teleprompter pitchman. Ron Paul wouldn't do anything, because the powers that be would zap him dead if he ever got close to auditing the "federal" reserve, or ending the imperial wars of conquest, or investigating the official fairy tale of 9/11, or ending the bogus war on drugs. Just as legislating morality never works, these scum at the top of the pyramid don't like uppity executives sniffing around their stinky cheese. Research assassinated US presidents (and attempts like Jackson) and the positions on central banking these men made public.

Actually, the only Democracy in the mid-east would be a very easy target for obliteration without its ties to the other Democracy you are so ready to dismiss, the United States. The sex trade is a world-wide problem yes, but like individual liberty, if you believe women and chlldren in this country have the right to pursue life, liberty and happiness as you do, you don't sacrifice them for some experiment or find excuses to cut them out of the Constitution. You have no understanding or respect for this nation if you think everything we stand for can be junked because a President got elected you don't happen to agree with. I'll take the constitution of the United States and what it stands for thanks, as my status quo, and yes, you would be wasting your breath to argue that it be piled on the junk heap of extremist libertarian theory and every man for himself governance. That's exactly why your man has no chance in hell of winning even one state in this union, let alone a nomination as President of these UNITED (as in Federally United) States. Because Americans actually BELIEVE this stuff doesn't change everytime some wacko comes along as says it should.

Personally, I like Ron Paul--he is honest, has integrity, consistent and ethical but I would vote for Gary Busey as president before I could in good conscience pull the level for Paul and watch his disasterous theories take hold. He is definitely an "ala carte" menu--pick and choose an issue, there is something for everyone, however, the problem is you get the whole misguided enchiliada and have to take all the disasterous ideas as well.

He has a following because the voters are begging for someone, anyone that will fight the dysfunctional system we have in Washington. The bar is not real high right now and at a hands off government is appealing...that is until it's a program you like or need that is being abolished. I don't trust his policies but the man himself is trustworthy. However, his real appeal to independents is he the only GOP anti-war candidate and has been consistent and honest about his all his views. I don't agree with his domestic policy ideas nor do I think it is realistic to think we can put the toothpaste back in the tube by designing 18th century policy for our modern country and the world we live in. My high school years were wonderful but I no longer would look good in an 80's perm, we change and evolve to fit new needs and desires. Even the Framers knew the document would grow as we did. How many states were part of the US when the Constitution was enacted? How many are there now? What was the majority of the citizens income derived from back then? Agriculture and only a small percentage farm now. We are no longer on the frontier with lots of space between us and that is where his idea of neutering the federal government and giving almost all authority to the states may play well in theory and campaign slogans, but it is a disaster in reality. Jsut the way corporations run everything now--can you imagine what it would be like with no regulation? Serfs and Noblemen society!

One last thing about Paul that demonstrates how we could never govern. He hasn't to my knowledge had any of his legislation become law. Even if someone out there can manage to find an example, there aren't a lot of them in his 30 years in Congress. So how is he going to dismantle every entitlement program, the Dept. of Defense, The Federal Reserve? Besides, he hates the Federal Government so much yet he chose to work in Washington setting national" policy rather than being a state senator! I heard him being interviewed where admitted his Austrian economic theories have never worked in reality and no country has ever done it.

His and his devout follower's real acheivement will be that they got many conversations started on topics that five years ago were unheard of. But be careful what you wish for: "freedom" ain't really that free,

Nice post, "e"!

envirogal, well played!

Since when did freedom become a "disastrous theory?" To have a government whose limited role is to prevent people from harming one another, allowing them the freedom to make choices for themselves. While you personally may not like the choices some may make, that does not mean the country will go to hell if we are allowed freedom.

Your analogy to your 80's hairstyle is false. Freedom works. It is a universal truth, not a fashion trend. Freedom is timeless and will always be relevant.

How ridiculous your claim is that "freedom isn't really free!" Of course, you think that other people are not competent enough to make decisions for themselves, therefore YOU should have power over them because YOU know better.

Your ideas are the epitome of evil and have been the root cause of tyranny in this world. There is only freedom or force and I will fight to my (but preferably your) death people like you who try to take my liberty "for my own good."

Shame on the media!!! Despite your lame attempts, he's still in the top 3 nationally. You should talk about how Santorum, Huntsman, or Cain have not shot at winning.

In real news, he raised 1.7 million dollars today despite a cyber attack on his website. Cover that you goons.

Hey crusty, do you even know what "socialism" means? Obviously not if you think Obama is a socialist...

exactly right.

Your are correct Tet, he is a leninist. Look it up for yourself. Stop burying you lemming head in the sand. The economy is stalled for a reason.

Ask some of Obama's friend what socialism is, you know like Van Jones, he can tell you.....

I keep seeing these wild accusations of "socialist/marxist/leninist/anti-american/muslim/etc" but notice that they never present any valid proof.

"What about Government Motors" they whine. Well, that auto maker bailout/purchase was signed by GW Bush before he left office, and the Obama administration has been systematically selling off shares. Chrysler was sold completely, and the few remaining GM shares will be sold soon. Oh, and Obama, in a good old fashioned capitalist way, actually managed to make a profit for the Government on the deal.

"What about that known marxist he's associated with". So he had a neighbor that was an avowed marxist? So what, Obama is hardly responsible for what his neighbors think or do. "Guilt by association" is a very flimsy premise to hang an accusation from.

So what's left? Well, nothing but lies and rumor mongering, of course. Do any of you happen to be Christians? Did you forget the "Thou shalt not bear false witness" commandment?

This time around, actually Ron Paul has a chance to capture the party nomination, even though it will be a tooth-and-nail fight against the establishment politicians and the media. Peoples' views are changing dramatically, and as conditions deteriorate and Obama blames "bad luck", guess who stands to benefit -- Ron Paul. Actually, he has the best chance to beat Obama because Obama's base is growing more and more disenchanted with him. Republicans need to understand what's good for them.

Funny -- the only honest politician that's been consistent in his 30-years record in Congress, and Americans don't want him? Vote for some hypocrite, and we'll deserve what we'll be getting.

Stand up for a REAL change. Paul is it.

David Duke?

Hi Sarg good to see you again,

Actually I believe that most Dems have accepted that they
will most likely lose the Senate but they (we) are optimistic about taking back
the house with only 25 seats needed for control. A recent Gallup poll shows
that Dems lead by 11 points in their generic Party ranking.

Ron Paul's no free thinker... he's an adherent to the dogma of libertarianism, a political movement from the 19th century. Name an issue and you can predict Paul's stand based on the libertarian playbook. Libertarianism protects the rights of business over people. Libertarians think it's OK for a restaurant to put up a sign saying "No *iggers" because the government has no authority to regulate private business. Libertarians think the government has no authority to prevent the drug dealer down the street from you from having hand grenades. Libertarians would take us back to post civil war America, life expectance around 50, gang shoot outs in the streets, nature's bounty to whomever was the most ruthless. Libertarianism is usefull as a viewpoint from which to gain perspective on an issue, but as a governing philosophy, it's idiotic.

I choose to retain the constitution of the United States and not have it dismantled by Ron Paul. I'd say I have a very, very good chance of having a majority of Americans agreeing with me on that one. Freedom brings responsibilities. That's what's really scaring you.

Jacques, libariians would banish the EPA, allowing oil refiners and other polluters to spew tons upon tons of poisons into nearby neighborhoods. For residents of those neighborhoods, freedom from the government's EPA means early death. Liberty to libertarians simply means allowing business to do whatever it wants in the pursuit of profit with no restrictions from a government. This would take us back to the middle ages.

Joe - It an issue of economics. Pollution is a negative externality and right now the EPA is in place to regulate the harm of pollution. Eliminating the EPA doesn't mean that all of our rivers will be polluted. The state will still have the right to control pollution. If it were only up to local governments and not federal to monitor pollution, not only would we save a LOT of money, but it would give people an incentive because that's the air THEY are breathing and their families are breathing. Right now big companies are polluting and just paying the tax on it. They don't care about the effects they are having on people and the fact now that millions of people have cancer.

We don't need the EPA (because they are other state laws in place to regulate) and by having all these federal government programs it's a slap in the face to the states because it's like they don't trust us to make the right decision. Businesses won't do whatever they want because local or state governments will have something to say about it. We won't go back to the middle ages. We have too much education on the harms of pollution to do that. Let's just call it quits and save some tax dollars.

Peach: The problem with leaving environmental rules up to the states only is that pollutants don't stay neatly within state boundaries - the winds blow clear across the nations, rivers flow from state to state, even groundwater moves across state boundaries. The result could be that some states, under the influence of a powerful and wealthy corporations, would not put any restrictions on pollution emissions, figuring it would all flow down river and down wind anyway. Then what could the downstream/downwind states do - put up a giant dam wall? Pay huge sums to clean up someone elses mess? or just suffer from the harmful effects? Or maybe go to war against the polluters? No Way.

That's precisely why we set up environmental regulations on the Federal level. But in a nod to "States Rights", the Federal EPA sets minimum standards, and allows the states to set higher standard if they wish, and some states do.

But he IS a right-to-lifer; so much for being a libertarian.

He's NOT a right-to-lifer. He's a state's righter. He thinks it should be left up to the individual states, just like gay marriage. He wants the federal government to step back and stop usurping powers that are given to the states by the U.S. Constitution. I would never have an abortion. I would never perform an abortion. That doesn't make me a "right-to-lifer". You know why? Because I would also never tell a woman what she can do with her body, and I would never make someone else pay for what that woman does to her body. That is Ron Paul's stance as well. He is for true freedom and the Constitution. His voting record for the past 30 years is 100% consistent with this. The best indicator of future performance is past performance, so why not vote for someone who has proven himself to have integrity, who looks out for the people and not big business? He will bring our troops home and stop the disgusting funding of these illegal wars. That's a huge step in the right direction, even if you are only considering the financial implications for our country. That's a lot of money that can be put to much better use, like paying down our astronomical debt.

Oh sure. Let's see how that works! Everyone's constitutional rights and civil rights are just "up to the states". Gee, wonder what states would allow women or blacks to vote? How about which states would regulate clean air or water? Think anyone would bother regulating the drug companies in their own states? How about national defense or do we get "Texas defense" and "Arizona defense"? Does the sun come up in your world?

This is false information, that you keep on repeating over and over agian! Constitution already protects those rights......Stop with your propaganda

Corey,

Paul believes the Constitution is interpreted to mean LESS Federal mandate and ALL State Rights. That is the fallacy.

United States,...Not Divided States. Impossible interpretation. and NO basis in reality. His ideas would usurp the Supreme Court decisions, too.

Clara, that's not true. The Constitution applies to every American citizen. But there are plenty of things that are not Constitutional issues that should be left up to the states, as dictated by the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land. A state is not free to it's own interpretation of the Constitution. That is why we have a Supreme Court. To determine if a law is Constitutional or not. But there are plenty of issues that have nothing to do with rights granted by the Constitution. For example, the Department of Education does nothing but suck taxes and enforce mediocrity in schools. The states are in a much better position to oversee education. The Department of Education needs to go away. It would save tax dollars and result in better schools, and that money could be put to MUCH better use. There is too much redundancy of state agencies in the federal government and they don't actually accomplish much besides becoming black holes for taxes. This is the kind of thing Ron Paul is referring to when he talks about states rights, not any rights guaranteed by the Constitution. If you actually take 5 minutes to look up his voting record for the last 30 years, you will see that it is true. He defends the Constitution and our freedoms more ardently that anyone else in Congress.

Your reasoning behind these accusations being.....?

Wrong. He wants to remove federal drug regulations and let the states regulate them instead and stop wasting lots of money on drug wars we aren't winning.

Wrong again. Paul doesn't want to do away with social security or medicare for those who have been paying into the system. He simply wants the young people to have the right to OPT OUT, but he said a few times he won't leave the people depending on SS and Medicare high and dry. They will get their benefits. When he said of abolishing those programs, he meant EVENTUALLY as a gradual phase-out for future generation.

Denis: Do you have any clue at all about the average savings of Americans? And you want them to play the stock market with what little they do save?? Why do you think that idea went absolutely nowhere when Bush floated it? He HAS said he will abolish social security and medicare. He HAS said he would make prostitution legal. He is an extremist who will not be leading this country anywhere at any time.

@AP - prostitution is not going away so why not legalize it and collect taxes from the pimps and prostitutes? Isn't it time they pay too?

Denis- give it up the staw poll is bought and paid for it is a joke - Michelle Bachmann put out $180,000 dollars to buy the vote - Ron Paul's time has come and gone - he is 75 years of age - not knocking it however - some things I buy into others are the white unicorn- ain't going to happen he is still living in the past - we need ideas for the future - not going back - ain't going to work in today's economy - probably might have worked in 1860 but not today

tim - read my previous post - yes your man has integrity and I don't believe in Bush's BS wars however this man has a crazy son, Rand Paul who must have gotten his ideas from Dad and scares me - I have three children who think maybe not as I think but over the years I do see them coming around to my thinking - never pushed or shoved them let them come to their own conclusions - but what I have instilled in them is fairness - and never tell me the devil made me do it you are responsible for your own actions - and again Rand Paul would not be my son

If "normal people" refers to those who believe in conspiracy theories involving the Federal Reserve and a secret plan to abolish the dollar and forge the US, Canada and Mexico into one country called the "North American Union."

and if "normal people" are clamoring for the day we can all walk around with gold dabloons in our pockets....

Ron Paul, the only hope to defend the constitution. You sheeple remember that it starts with "We the people" The Patriot Act brought to you by the usual subjects null and voided it. Homeland Security = Amerikan Gestapo.

Amazing how some who seem to worship the Constitution don't seem to understand it, or have even read it. It is not a complete set of laws, it is the foundation of our laws and our system of government. To claim that some law is "unconstitutional" simply because it isn't mentioned in the Constitution is to ignore the fact that it grants Congress the right to pass laws and make regulations, and puts few restrictions on what laws Congress can make.

If there is a conflict between 2 laws, the Courts have the authority resolve that conflict, and if a law conflicts with the Constitution, the Courts can declare such a law Unconstitutional. The Courts have not found any conflict between the Constitution and the EPA, IRS, drug laws, Education dept., etc., they are all Constitutional.

If Perry were to be elected president, who would sit in the big chair; Perry or Jesus?

God is dead. Long live Rick Perry!

And my guess is that Perry is a closet homosexual, just like Christine O'Donnell. something about the tea party...

Gee, haggisbingo-2225582, is there something wrong with being a homosexual? What other prejudices do you have to share with us?