Values what?

Anyhow, I'm glad Ron Paul won. We'll get to hear more about him. I like what I see, and I want to learn about why there seems to be resistance to him.

scott-579755
Values what?

Anyhow, I'm glad Ron Paul won. We'll get to hear more about him. I like what I see, and I want to learn about why there seems to be resistance to him.

If you think about it long enough, that question answers itself. First and foremost, he won't take the corporate lobbyists' bribe money to let them be his puppet master. He has actually been consistent for his 30+ years in politics, having no strings to pull, and he makes the U.S. Constitution his 1st priority on EVERY posistion. With him at the helm, our government would become, once again, one that's ruled By The People, For The People, just like our forefathers wanted. So, taking control of our country out of the hands of the corporate puppet masters, and giving it back to We The People= good for our country, bad for those greedy top 15% money-holders. So of course those greedy bastards will do everything they can to resist him.

Unfortunantly, that's also why he can't win, even if in reality he did. Just like in 2000, even if he actually came out on top when the people go to the polls, the corporations would pull their strings and make some excuse as to "the results weren't valid in...", then once again the Supreme Court would get to put one of the corporations' puppets into the POTUS seat.

I believe you should find out the true reasons Ron Paul would not have voted for those things. It certainly wouldn't be for the reasons you seem to believe.

Ron Paul appears to be the only choice if you want change. He has a lot of radical ideas. Even if half of what he wants to do actually gets done we will be better off. Unfortunately I agree prohibition, the corporations will not allow it to happen.

It would make me so very happy to vote for Dr. Ron Paul for President.

The worst thing is, that if I'm right, the ONLY possible hope to get the country out from under the corporate string pullers' control, is a revolution.

You can think as you choose, but if you look into it you will see that is not his stance. He has valid reasons for saying that he would not have voted for those things because they are against the constitution. Ron Paul is for freedom and liberty. Period. There are no exceptions.

kathryn

I do not know why you think racism is a good thing??

please explain.

prohibition - A revolution would only create a higher degree of unemployment and little else but a return to a barter type economy.

No, I think it's clearly the result of the mainstream media and their treatment of Ron Paul. He says he wouldn't vote for the Civil Rights Bill and the media fills in the reasons for him. Every single one of his reasons is that they are all unconstitutional, but that's not how the media wants to portray him. Showing him as a racist, woman hater is going to produce the results they're looking for as should be clear by the complete brush off he gets winning these straw polls.

Ron Paul on a roll! Corporate repubs can't stand it because Ron Paul isn't for sale. They will try their best to stop him. Hopefully they will fail. Mainsteam demos can't stand it because Ron Paul is the only repub candidate that can and will take a significant percentage of the vote of liberty loving anti-war progressives and anti-state Leftists. Make no mistake, the establishment fears Ron Paul. They will pull out their bag-o-tricks to stop him. Hopefully, they will fail.

James,

If he does something I believe is good, I will give him credit; if he does something I believe is crap, I will will bash him. I won't post happy thoughts to please dems or random attacks to please repubs.

http://indylib.newsvine.com/_news/2011/09/26/7979078-the-all-or-nothing-president

My thoughts are best expressed in this article.

Ron Paul is the USA's only hope for change, he should have won in 2008, but it's not too late

I don’t mind Ron Paul, however since his comments about killing off Al-Awlaki the other day, I’ve become doubtful about him.

wtm

please explain

I like Paul's economic ideas, but his foreign policy ideas are plain crazy. I couldn't vote for him.

Straw poll will change all the time and any Republican candidate is better than Obama.We must not allowed the media bias and liberals to create a fight among Republicans , this is our primaries not them. However as a Christian conservative I'm ashamed of this pastor, he want to became the Rv Write for Mr. Perry, I hope he throw him under the bus like Obama did with his pastor. Republican 2012

I haven't watched any of the debates but from what I hear from them and what I read in the newspaper and on the various websites here I like Cain for President, Ron Paul would be my second choice.

I did like Bachman until I came to realize she is just making up things to get herself elected which is wrong and I think bad for this country. Rick Perry I liked until I heard he was for the illegal aliens he helped get into the schools and he thinks all girls should be vaccinated which is wrong too. I don't go for either of those things of his so he is off my list. Romney I don't like because he was for the Obamacare before Obama even announced it. Palin was okay until she opened her mouth and both she and Bachman doesn't know anything about their country or their history.

One of the network commentaries made two comments one a year ago I think and one last night both regarding Mario Rubio in Florida making a good vice president or a future president.

He is a cuban, he is a tea party favorite, he is a republican, he is in Florida and the list goes on and on and in many ways he would be an ideal candidate down the road if he wanted to be. sandy

Mike---

Can you go back to the Democrat primaries , Hillary vs Obama. Very elocuent and educated.

I like Ron Paul's consistency and integrity, but that's not to say I like all his positions, much of which belong in an earlier century. And even Adam Smith wrote that capitalism only works with ethics and charity. Survival of the fittest is not a scenario you want to be in (thus civilization). Pure capitalism would be a world of unrestrained monopolies in which you would be a wage slave, living 25 people to a house with no water or electricity. We've done that before and when cholera begin to spread the rich decided it wasn't working too well.

Libertarianism has been perverted by low-information voters and Teabagger-types, and used by corporate interests to gain more power and wealth. True Libertarians are joining the Occupy Wall Street movement, which is progressive in nature per the history of Libertarianism.

james -- Read about the social contract.

US, Government -- Why punish Canada with warmongers? At least give them the option of moving down to the lower 48 with the sane people. I say just let the south secede, make far-right folks move there, and any progressives in the south can move out. It would be a race to the bottom and soon a third world country we would have to provide foreign aid to. We already do to the south, but this would be worth it.

I see a lot of constitutional "purists" who are die-hard Ron Paul supporters and I admire the consistency of their positions as I do Paul's. However, after all that purity and dedication and refusal to bend; when its all said and done, most of 'em will settle for Mitt Romney who will bend to any wind and is the political whore of all time.

DC is so afraid of Ron and Rand Paul I expect them to take a bullet soon.

Don't project yourself on others. Politicians who have been assassinated for their beliefs are those who put country first, Lincoln, Kennedy, and both in regard to slavery and civil rights. THIS is what scares establishment and special interests.

You know, I see a lot of Ron Paul supporters here. However, no matter how much you like him, he's still a nut-job. Yes, you have a valid argument for stating that he was given a bad reputation through the media interpretation of his view on civil rights, etc.; however, I saw a live video of him claiming that he wants to dismantle FEMA, EPA, HUD, and many more agencies. Sorry, but his statement about FEMA is completely rediculous. He advocates going back to a time when that agency didn't exist and any disaster aid was through local volunteers. He even had the audacity to invoke the hurricane that hit Galveston in 1900, in his home state, as to how we could manage disasters. What a fruit loop! There were over 12,000 people that died in that storm. People that did survive the initial storm were cut off for weeks and died of disease. He advocates people being responsible for living in unsafe regions. Can you imagine all the Ron Paul supporters in CA should a mega 9.0 hit there, with zero coordinated disaster aid?

Like I said, fruit loop.....

the 12 thousand that died had no idea how bad a storm was coming. There were no freeways, no cars, no weather radar. The reason 12k died was there was no way to escape. You like FEMA so much go live in one of their trailers. You are stupid in comparing apples to oranges.

RP wants to dismantle government run FEMA and other miserably failed government run policies because of the misuse and waste of tax payer's money. Did you know that 400 trucks filled with food sat still (Katrina) for 11 months because FEMA couldn't get their act together? And the 400 truck drivers sat in hotel rooms for 11 months and got paid hundreds of dollars a day to watch TV in their hotel rooms while they waited for FEMA to get it's shtuff together. Ron Paul is simply saying to allow the free market and STATES to run organizations such as FEMA, and get the government out. As we know, the government has no knowledge on how to produce or run successful business....oh yeah, except for Medicare. A fine example.

The only time Straw polls are not important to lame stream media is when Ron Paul wins. Look at the blitz when Cain won one.... You would have thought he already had his foot in the white house door!

Ron Paul is the only chance for saving America from Cooperate domination, the Banking industry and the military industrial complex.

Viva La R3volution

Ron Paul 2012

JB,

Ron never said that he was opposed to disaster aid from the states. There is just no reason to have a highly unorganized federal agency do it.

You pay someone to build you a house, and they give you a cardboard box. Then, nobody is held accountable, would you buy a house from them again? We Americans buy that house year after year.

He would be a lame duck president from day one!!!! The President does not make law ... and he has very few (if any) followers on capital hill ... wishful thinking!

Zorroaca44, Please don't just give up and think that no one can make a difference. We could vote in better leaders on capitol hill as well.

Something that Ron Paul knows is that the dollar is worth about 4 cents in actual purchasing power. You make 10 dollars an hour you are only making $3.20 a day. or $16.00 per week in actual spending power. $3 a week went further in the great depression than does $10 an hour now days because of how much our dollar has been devalued because of debt.

Ron wants to get our money on track and build it's value back up.

I know a lot of people are confused when he talks about the gold standard. He knows it is not possible for gold to back the dollar so what he wants to do is bring down the price of gold to a ratio of when gold did back the dollar. Compare the ratios now to back when the dollar was backed by gold and you can see how much value the dollar has lost over time. When the dollar was backed by gold the cost of gold was $35 an ounce now it hovers around $2000 an ounce.

My only regret about Ron Paul is that I did not know about him sooner. If I had known about him when he ran in 1988 I would have campaigned and voted for him myself. I knew as far back as when Nixon was president and he took the dollar off the gold standard that things would go down hill. We have quite a recession around that time as a result.

I did begin to see the changes by the early 90's. Things were changing but the changes were brought about so slowly that many people did not notice the prices of things were going up gradually because of debt. Now our money is debt. I have heard it said that 40 cents of every dollar is debt but I personally think it is much higher than that. If people really knew the real figures they would be much more outraged than they are at present and everyone would be protesting with the occupy wall street and occupy the fed groups.

Ron Paul knows that without financial freedom we are sunk. Our economy needs to be rebooted. I think Ron Paul is the only one with the courage and the actual knowledge on how to do it. If you want to see small businesses thriving again instead of empty shopping centers and longer unemployment lines you would be wise to give Ron Paul's ideas a hard look. If you want affordable health care instead of what your are getting ready to get you will vote for Ron Paul.

I know a lot of people think the government owes us health care. As our dollar continues to loose value you may find that the cost of health insurance will go up and so will health care and you might not be able to get the care you need under Obamacare. He could have just expanded medicade or medicare to cover people there is a reason you are not seeing as of yet as to why he did not do that. Ron Paul wants to make care affordable again.

He wants to end the wars. They are costing us too much in life and treasure. That does not mean he will not defend our country. I agree with him that we are more unsafe with most of our troops over seas instead of here. They could be rebuilding our infrastructures and spend their money here and add to our economy rather than us paying for them to defend and rebuild other countries. he was all for going after Bin Laden but not for going into Iraq or going to war with the other nations over there. we could have handled Bin Laden much more effectively than we did.

No one voted for Newt? Where is Newt in this poll? I think there is prejudice against Newt here. Why would some in Washington give money to Newt then not vote for him? I'm concerned about Newt. Media doesn't seem to even know where He is much of the time. Newt bears watching. He's liable to get lost, or take something that doesn't belong to him if he thinks no one is watching him.

Mr Forrester,

You sir are a funny guy!

Wow...my earlier post got collapsed... Ron Paul supporters are rabid...it seems that most posts that do not give him praise are collapsed... you guys need to take a chill pill...it's just politics.

And yeah, sorry to break it to you fellas.... but Ron Paul is not rational in his views of legislation. He's stuck in his own flawed views of the world... his cognizant view of reality is severely skewed. I like the guys tenacity and the fact that his positions do not change with the wind (ala Romney), but being consistent does not predispose ones view to correctness or just behaviors, after all Bush was consistent... YES VERY CONSISTENTLY WRONG, although I think he's a good guy too.

So take a chill pill Ron Paul people... don't worry RP aint going no where, he'll run again in 2016.

This is BREATHTAKING!

Now, how about giving him *some* press?

I'm really impressed with his philosophy: it is actually original and consistent, not a hodgepodge of ideas from everybody-but-the-democrats.

And the worst anyone can say about him is that he's a nut-job or too old? WHAT kind of arguing is that? I think we are so used to voting for politicians that when a real man shows up, we freak out!

LisaFrequency, could you please elaborate on how Ron Paul wants to make healthcare affordable? To date, I have not heard any really plan. Not attacking you, I just want information. I have heard several things from Mr. Paul and he has seemed to have misinterpreted history to empower his own view. I don't disagree with him on everything, and I do believe he is treated unfairly by the media, but I do strongly disagree with home on a number of issues and would not vote for him.

Power will not go to the people in a libertarian system as he seems to think. Corperations will be the ones to fill the void that less government leaves behind. To presume the free market will regulate itself more strictly than the government would is completely unfounded especially with the increased importance placed on short term gains over long term interests.

Ron Paul may have won the straw poll in Washington state, but I'm willing to bet you that delegates don't give him the nomination.

workhorse

since you are now chatting with someone who is familiar with the caucus...I would disagree with you greatly

Ron Paul will win Washington State.

To workhorse and james ---

I don't believe the conference was in Washington State. Rather I think it was in Washington D.C.

it isnt until march here.

doesnt matter...he will win washington state.

You folks do know he is 76 years old now, by the time he would take office he would be approaching 78....somehow I just don't think so......and before the hateful remarks begin I am a great grandmothr my self and that is how I know Ron Paul is too old.

LisaFrequency, could you please elaborate on how Ron Paul wants to make healthcare affordable?

For one thing he will stop what is being done to alternative medicine which will give allopathic medicine more competition. The government keeps placing more and more regulations on alternative medicine and it is driving alternative practitioners out of business. Allopathic medicine will be forced to come up with better treatments if the alternatives are allowed the same privileges.

He knows things are being done to foods that are causing more illness and that regulations to reduce the nutritional value of foods is already in place.

By allowing drug companies to advertise but not alternative medicine the drug companies have no competition and they can do almost anything they want and charge whatever they want because they have paid off the bureaucrats to keep regulations in place that keep alternatives from being able to compete.

If an alternative can treat the same thing at under half the cost is it fair that the alternative cannot advertise but a drug that treats the same thing and has death or some illness worse that is being treated as a known side effect do you think it is fair that the alternative which is safer and just as effective is not allowed to state what it does under threat of imprisonment and heavy fines set to drive the company out of business?

Some people are actually smart enough to make their own choices about things but the way it is your choice is fast becoming non-exsistant. People will become more healthy if they are allowed choice and things like GMO high fructose corn syrup and artificial sweeteners are not allowed in our food supply this should have never been allowed to happen.

Dr Mercola states what is happening very well:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QZHHBGFwcs

Corporate America hates Ron Paul because he would actually let free markets work. They claim to want this but in reality what they want is unfair advantages, and Crony Capitalism. Those days are coming to an end soon, its only a mater of time..

The sweetheart of the "values voters" is the guy who would let the guy without insurance die. Some values!

corporations dont want a government that leaves them alone...they want a government they can use.

Lisafrequency-- Regulating alternative medicine and even vitamins will not drive the industry under. Look at Big Pharma, which is regulated--they are raking in the bucks. This kind of assumption goes hand-in-hand with the anti-intellectualism movement. I MUCH prefer the scientific method to psuedo-science, and safety in products I consume. I have some snake oil to sell you, it will heal all that ails you - Ha!

I suspect a lot of Ron Paul supporters are low-information voters or young Republicans. Review history about the days of "buyer beware" and false advertisement and lack of safety measures in general. Heck, just go live some place like China and enjoy all the drywall-filled medication, lead in paint, and contaminated toothpaste to your hearts content.

Maybe you've read about Listeria and other food poisoning constantly in the news? The FDA and other regulatory agencies are not perfect, but I'd rather have some protection than no protection. Some of you people are nuttier than Ron Paul.

Here's how the social contract works -- In exchange for national security, which includes Rule of Law, ensuring food to feed the population, educating the population, infrastructure for the population and commerce, protection of resources for the population, protecting the population for foreign invasion (the list goes on but you get the drift), We the People agree to pay reasonable taxes.

What the far right advocates is free-for-all anarchy because they don't want to pay taxes. Move to another country, please.

I don't care how many polls Ron Paul wins, he's still un-electable because of his crazy anti-EPA stance. Those of us old enough to remember the days before the EPA know, first hand, how idiotic that would be. We've already been there. The end result of lax environmental regulations produced extremely toxic Superfund waste sites from coast to coast. I lived near three of these sites. Our water was not fit to drink until the EPA forced the polluters to clean up their act and pay for removing pollutants from our surface water. Our ground water was, and still is, polluted beyond any reasonable remediation.

No thanks, Ron Paul, those of us old enough to remember the rampant irresponsibility of polluting corporations like what the EPA has accomplished. The free market did nothing to curb pollution before the EPA, and only a naive fool would think polluters would be any more responsible today.

neither one of you understand libertarianism and your recollection of history is a bit skewed.

for one...fraudulant advertising is just that FRAUD...and is a criminal offense if the government deems to protect our rights like its supposed to....also...much of the pollution came at a time that they were unaware of the consequences...and once they were aware...government protected industries....which of course was the government again not protecting the rights of the individual.

the river that burned...for instance...the people had brought suit against the company that was pollutiing..and the government protected them.

I find it fascinating that people do not see how government purposefully refuses to protect individuals so that then we scream for "safety" in which they gain more control....and take away freedom.

its happened time and time again.

and speaking of learning from history...I think that history has proven that a large central government is a bad thing......ALWAYS

freedom however and the libertarian philosophy has never been disproven....why continue down the same failed road that our ancestors have?? why are we unable to progress?? why do we NEED to have kings and someone to rule over us>> why do we need to be slaves?

Wow! The "Paulists" have shown themselves to be the most thin skinned and pettiest "swarm" I've seen since I first came here. Bravo! You may support Dr. Paul, but you are missing the point of libertarianism by collapsing anyone's comments, let alone the several innocuous ones I read...

Looks like the Collapse Trolls were hard at work...

The sweetheart of the "values voters" is the guy who would let the guy without insurance die. Some values!

He absolutely did not say let the person die listen to what he said:

http://youtu.be/7BXTKrbGbZs

This is Ron talking about the health care mess and what is causing it:

http://youtu.be/foXQbmZxWYY

Ron Paul is a nice old man, but hes boring. Wise up this guy is all washed up and hes to old to be anything.

If Ron Paul were elected, gridlock in Washington would be worse than it is with Obama. There would not only be the democrat party blocking legislation, but the corporate and status-quo republican good ole boy and girl club also........

Mike-232 - Ron Paul is for freedom and liberty. Period. There are no exceptions.

Unless of course you're gay. In that case Paul doesn't think you should have the civil rights of due process or equal protection under the law.

Why else would he support DOMA, or author the "Marriage Protection Act"? Ron Paul is a homophobic bigot.

shrek

he has already stated that government should get out of marriage...that it got involved due to "health" reasons.....so gay marriage would be legalized under ron paul by default...as he would get government out of it.

you need to think before you post....and he has voted against many things.......doesnt mean he is against it. such as the CRA,,,,,,its not because he is against civil rights...but because how the law impedes upon property rights....which of course was the reason behind it to begin with

I would suggest you actually research a candidates stance...before you go spouting off such uneducated drivel.

Agree or Not, Electable or Not, I would vote for him before Obama or Perry or any of the other special interest paid for stuffed suit.

I don't know when we are going to wake up and realize our real problem is the Campaigns themselves. The way their paid for, the way Companies and Special Influence groups basically control the Policy. We need complete Election reform and Term Limits. These guys make to much money to serve the public and they enjoy a lifetime of benefits for doing absolutely nothing but serving their Cronies.

james-1416766 - he has already stated that government should get out of marriage...that it got involved due to "health" reasons.....so gay marriage would be legalized under ron paul by default...as he would get government out of it.

LOL.....I suspect you're pretty clueless about Ron Paul's views on this issue, and have bought into his rhetoric without analyzing his positions. Paul offers no solutions to the denial of equal treatment that exists today, and has offered no legislation whatsoever to "get the government out of marriage". Nor is that a feasible solution in any respect - the far better solution is to treat gays the sane as everyone else under our secular law.

Ask yourself why he supports DOMA (a violation both of states rights and of equal protection) and why he wrote the odious "Marriage Protection Act", which would have denied gays the right to due process regarding any challenges to DOMA. The only action Paul has taken on this issue is to harm the civil rights of gays.

He's a bigot. There are very good reasons Ron Paul scores very poorly with the ACLU, NAACP, and the HRC - they pay attention to his actions in the House.

Don't whine about Ron Paul. Whatever state your in is responsible for this, Not the federal government. Call your governor and talk to him. It's his fault. Look at VT, NY, and other states when it comes to equality for gays. IT IS THE INDIVIDUAL STATES RESPONSIBILITY!!!!!

JJ-johnnyreb2874187 - Don't whine about Ron Paul. Whatever state your in is responsible for this, Not the federal government.

Ummmm.......DOMA is a federal law. Ron Paul's "Marriage Protection Act" was a proposed federal law.

Sounds like you don't understand the issue, Johnny.

Hi skrekk,

Haven't talked to you in a couple of days. I hope you are doing well?

Ron Paul has always stated that marriage is a state issue not a federal one. He has always been against anything that goes contrary to the constitution and involving the federal government in marriage licenses that are issued by the states is not included in the constitution. That is why he voted against DOMA, he does not believe, based on the constitution, that the federal government has any right to force a state to follow certain laws. Now I cannot say if he would vote for gay rights in his own state, but that doesn't matter to me because I would just leave there if they didn't want gay marriage.

Ali-2098312 - That is why he voted against DOMA, he does not believe, based on the constitution, that the federal government has any right to force a state to follow certain laws.

You're flat wrong, Ali. Sounds like you don't understand the issue at all, and haven't paid attention to what Ron Paul's position actually is.

Ron Paul wasn't in office when DOMA was passed, however he says that he fully supports DOMA. For example, Ron Paul supports the denial of federal recognition to certain legal in all the marriage equality states, which is a clear denial of states rights and a denial of equal protection. FYI, DOMA wasn't needed to allow states to refuse to recognize gay marriages from out of state (otherwise mixed-race marriages wouldn't have required a SCOTUS ruling).

Moreover, Paul wrote the "Marriage Protection Act", which would have denied the federal courts jurisdiction on DOMA, and thereby denied gays their civil right to due process.

Ali-2098312 - That is why he voted against DOMA

Very funny that Ali doesn't even know the positions of the candidate he supports.

I suspect that's true of most Paultards.

YAY Ron Paul, i'm just sorry the man looks like a goofball but he does have good ideas. I think he'd make a great pres. Maybe rattle some chains in DC.

shrek

you really need to understand his stances...because you dont have a damn clue

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul207.html

james-1416766 - you really need to understand his stances...because you dont have a damn clue

Perhaps you can explain why Ron Paul said he fully supports DOMA and would have voted for it.

Or can you explain why he wrote the odious "Marriage Protection Act"?

It sounds like James is the one who really doesn't understand the issue. The Human Rights Campaign understands exactly what Paul advocates - that's why they gave him such a horrible score on gay rights.

You're the tone deaf person screaming they can sing, while those who know better keep pointing to the door.

shrek

did you look at the link I provided/?? he explains it all.

james-1416766 - did you look at the link I provided/?? he explains it all.

I'm well aware of your link and it's very clear you don't understand it, since it supports what I've been saying. What Paul says there is that he opposes a federal constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. But he also says the following:

If I were in Congress in 1996, I would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act.....

I plan to continue working to enact the Marriage Protection Act and protect each state's right not to be forced to recognize a same sex marriage.

So he supports DOMA - which is a violation of states rights and a violation of equal protection, and he intends to continue to push the MPA, which is a blatant violation of due process and runs contrary to Marbury v Madison.

Paul is clearly a bigot, and if you follow his logic he'd also be opposed to the 1967 Loving v Virginia ruling (that's the type of federal court intervention he seeks to prevent with the MPA).

for goodness sakes your comprehension skills in regards to this issue are non existent...as you ignore everything he says.....or cannot understand it.

skrekk can't see the forest for the trees there, the key words are: "be forced to recognize a same sex marriage." He is talking about the government FORCING the states to do something, that they should NOT be able to force upon them. If the states WANT to allow same-sex marriage, then it is fine with Ron Paul, but big government has NO RIGHT to FORCE them to do such. Just in the same way they have no right to force most of their laws on the states that they do. As it says in the 10th ammendment of The Constitution:

• Tenth Amendment – Powers of States and people.

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.

So, marriage should be the decision of the state, not the federal government. Get it now?

Prohibition doesn't work - If the states WANT to allow same-sex marriage, then it is fine with Ron Paul, but big government has NO RIGHT to FORCE them to do such.

No state has ever been forced under Full Faith & Credit to recognize an out-of-state marriage which violated its own marriage statute, so DOMA was unnecessary for its stated purpose of "protecting states rights". Instead, what DOMA really does is treat legal marriages unequally at the federal level - for the first time in US history. It thus represents a denial of the rights of the marriage equality states to regulate marriage. And Ron Paul fully supports that denial of states rights and that unconstitutional denial of equal protection.

james-1416766 - for goodness sakes your comprehension skills in regards to this issue are non existent...as you ignore everything he says.....or cannot understand it.

I'm willing to listen - please explain why Ron Paul supports DOMA, and why he wrote the MPA. Do you even understand what DOMA does, and what the MPA would have done?

No wonder they call you guys Paultards.

Anyone knows

Obama is a one term president..period.

Ron Paul is loved because he articulates on his yes and no. Even the Libs come off as extra stupid when they try to slam his opinions. They are are out there in black and white for you to read.

DC is so afraid of Ron and Rand Paul I expect them to take a bullet soon.

WHY WAS THIS COMMENT COLLAPSED?

That and a quarter might get you a cup of coffee.

Where are you getting coffee? I wish a quarter bought a cup. LOL

The Straw polls are "BULL$HIT" Look at Bachmann, what did the SP do for her, Nothing.

Apologies to Ron Paul supporters ...but you just know that if things continue going in the direction they're already going, the GOP's Republican National Convention's will end up choosing between Romney or Perry, next year. Why? The lion's share of the contribution funding in the GOP is going to these two guys. And Ron Paul has his closest straw poll competition with Herman Cain, depending on what state, county or municipality runs a straw poll in their jurisdiction for their particular conservative respondents.

But who knows... some last-hour, popular Republican entrant may throw his hat into the Presidential candidacy race, throwing another Fox News reported straw poll into a loop, depending on which way the winds of ultra-conservative public opinions are blowing.

OMG....that is funny.

Thats funny ( and also truth ).

• What is amazing is our CAPITALIST FRIENDS EMBRACING COMMUNIST IDEAS.

Ayn Rand ( /ˈaɪn ˈrænd/;^[1] born Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum, February 2 [O.S. January 20] 1905 – March 6, 1982)/

Born and educated in Russia, Rand moved to the United States in 1926.

The reception for Rand's fiction from literary critics was largely negative, and most academics have ignored or rejected her philosophy.^[3]

Nonetheless she continues to have a popular following, and her political ideas have been influential among libertarians and conservatives.

What is amazing is our CAPITALIST FRIENDS EMBRACING COMMUNIST IDEAS.
Ayn Rand ( born Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum, February 2 [O.S. January 20] 1905 – March 6, 1982)/ Born and educated in Russia, Rand moved to the United States in 1926.

Ayn Rand was definitely NOT a "communist", in spite of her time in Russia she favored an extreme libertarian free-market capitalism bordering on anarchy. Her "Objectivist" philosophy does fit in with very well with the "I've got mine" selfish elitism endemic to the Republican party.

What is really amazing is how Ayn Rand's philosophy has been embraced by the Religious Right, considering that she was a devout Athiest. But then, the "Prosperity Theology" of the Religious Right is much closer to the selfish ideals of "Objectivism" than to the generous liberalism of traditional Christianity.

WCRIT--Well who did you think would follow the her>

What is amazing CM is how you are trying to say communism is embraced by the right. EVERY step Obama has taken is Communism 101.

awesome comment on rand

Poor old Ayn, died on social security, medicare and medicaid. Poor old Ayn.

There is already one of Kathryn circulating the net.

lol....Mark, my fellow American. You guys can't seem to make up your mind. One day, CONServatives are out there calling Obama a socialist and on another day, you CONServatives claim that he wants to be king!!

Again, What is amazing is our CAPITALIST FRIENDS EMBRACING COMMUNIST IDEAS:

Alan Greenspan was 'INFATUATED WITH AYD RAND" according to his own book.

And Greenspan, was the 'slow' ( trust me, Im trying to use the word I.D.I.O.T.) one who pushed for decades the idea of 'NO REGULATIONS FOR WALL-STREET' just to ADMIT later that HE WAS WRONG. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bX_vhojH8c&feature=related

Did you notice that Junior received an economic surplus and yet later WE THE PEOPLE HAVE TO BAIL OUT BANKS, INSURANCE COMPANIES, AUTO-MAKERS AND Brokerage Houses such as Goldman Sachs. ? ? ?

Yes, my fellow american, the CONServatives-GOP took your savings, your jobs and your home equity.

ARE YOU WILLING TO TURN OVER TO THEM your social security checks, Medicare, and your 401-K ?

That's up to you___________________— 8 )

Go to The Ayn Rand Institute's online site, see her quotes of hatred for libertarians.

It's nonsense to lump libertarians with Objectivists. Objectivists hate libertarians, and libertarians don't always like Objectivists either.

You seem to think because libertarians like her fiction books that we somehow also subscribe to her philosophy. You might want to read a bit more on that....it isn't true AT ALL.

Did you notice the line about Alan Greenspan and Ayd Rand ?

Greenspan was an Objectivist...he later went to Washington, and betrayed all of his economic "beliefs". He was present when Rand died actually. After her death he began a transformation into a full fledged Keynesian, and helped to inflate the bubble that burst in housing in 2007-2008. Greenspan is the first of many to claim to be Objectivist, only to later become Post/New Keynesians, Monetarists if you will (like Milton Freidman, another Keynesian). Freidman once said "we're all Keynesians now"...as did Richard Nixon.

So how did any of this disqualify the fact that libertarianism isn't anywhere near the same thing as Objectivism...and that Objectivists hate libertarians for the most part?

How also does her Social Darwinistic philosophy qualify as Communism, when she clearly built the philophosy as a rejection of her Communist upbringing?

Hmmmm.

So many front runners today and by election time we'll have pictures of half of them screwing a goat.

Sorry, the image of Obama screwing the country with his liberal spending addiction is far more disturbing!

On an earlier thread, the discussion revolved around who would replace obama/biden for the 2012 election, given that his base is dropping him 'fast and furious' and in record numbers!

One poster suggest the democratic ticket of Weiner/Holder 2012! Now that would be really disturbing! lol!

Are you insinuating that people are incapable of responsibility without laws to hold them to it?

Legalizing drugs and regulating them like alcohol and tobacco would have the opposite effect. The reason drugs are available is because drug cartels are making their insane profits, mostly off of marijuana. If they single out marijuana and treat it as alcohol or tobacco it will crush the drug cartels bringing drugs into the country. Hard drug use like meth would decline. Marijuana would be more difficult to obtain for those underage besides from irresponsible parents who already leave alcohol out for the kids to get. Drug dealers don't check ID, liquor stores do, and the many businesses selling cigarettes also do.

I'm sure you would prefer kids rotting in jail because of the drugs instead of being able to get treatment to help them.

Good ole corporate stooges. Hey Bob, we know you privately want to use the constitution as your personal toilet paper, but go try your tired rhetoric on faux news.

I am Saying that I don't think the Governments of the world are telling us what is really scaring them and why they are shutting down Free market Prosperity gradually and with it private ownership with Regulations designed to scare risk takers seeking business investments for profits away from those trades and opportunities so the capital system will fail and collapse so they can then seem like they are the only solution left to run the production of Vital Human Needs . If you consider how all the worlds resources have only been consolidated over the last 15-20 years into the small group of corporate controllers that are in bed with the Governments of the world you have to wonder why did they allow that to happen if they did not want the wealth redistribution of the markets to be better dispersed , unless you consider this a way for control to evolve ?

But wait don't you think this is whats causing all the private sector lending to dry up and all the Governments of the world to take over control of private lending by Over regulating the private sector to make them scared to lend so that Free market Capitalism and Profit based supply-side economics will die and then the Governments of the world will just have to Unite and take charge for civil and humanitarian reasons the Free markets so as to appear to be saving us but all the while really just getting all of the worlds People ready for a One World Order of Resource rationing because of the Fear of the Earth reaching its Human carrying capacity ?
20 Signs That A Horrific Global Food Crisis Is Coming

Courtesy of Michael Snyder, Economic Collapse

Trying to sneak policy into Law from a World Platform is not going to work .

Here is a quote from the SUSPS link, " the U.S. population continues to grow by about 3 million people per year, of which nearly half are immigrants, and two-thirds of the growth is a result of immigration, if the children of immigrants are included ". Is this whats causing the die-off of Funding for Business expansion in the world ?

With 318 million population and most of them now packing heat......gotta have some rules and laws. A good many folks can not control themselves....sad but true.

Please take a Look at the Dow Chart, , and please take a look at this Grain Yield chart, , that shows the rise in Yields over the same time as the Dow rise , and you will see the comparison in capital expansion and supply-side economic growth , notice the Charts similarity over the last 10 years and then you will see why we are not seeing a sustainable equity growth by a willing group of private finance Long Term debt funding agencies any more ..... the futures traders and the Big Money traders are telling you by their lack of will to keep long term debt positions held is because they know 2 things , if Food production cannot expand constantly and sustainably with Population growth then they lose their will to issue and hold long term Debt and we can see this each time the Equity Bubbles burst in the stock markets . by consolidating the wealth into the Corporate sector the Elites and Politicians gain 2 things , easy control of World Resources and a group of Corporate sector elite that go to the Whitehouse and Capital Hill getting in bed with Government while agreeing to look like the greedy ones for the Politicians to convince the voters that Government needs full control over all The Resources . The they can Ration and reverse the process of Innovation over the last 70 years thats created a Longer Human Life span on earth . It was the Plan in 1971 with the NSSM200 study, , ( and Kissinger is still in there advising these Government Bureaucrats today so tell me he's just there for coffee) , and its still the plan today ,
The Liberals and RINOS think they are doing Gods work ?

Please think rationally here... Ron Paul's stance is absolutely being bastardized by the way that you are presenting it. You are ranting about how all our children will be addicted to drugs due to Ron Paul having the libertarian view that the government should not interfere with nonviolent drug users who do nothing to harm anyone except for themselves... A police/ prison state is not only fiscally irresponsible but locking up people for smoking marijuana(which is what the real argument is, despite this posts author trying to twist words), locking these people up is also a moral failure on the part of the American Government. Instead of focusing our resources toward a failing policy of arresting billions of nonviolent users instead of focusing on treatment and the safety of our citizens creates a dangerous standard for our youth. By keeping Drugs illegal, especially marijuana, there is no safety standard, no regulation, and it makes illicit goods more available to our nation's youth than say alcohol, which is regulated, and also creates a profitable black market that not only cannot be taxed and wastes hundreds of billions of dollars enforcing, but this black market creates violent gangs, cartels and individuals. There is little violence stemming from black market bootleggers, or tobacco farmers, meanwhile those products are harder for our youth to gain access to because the regulation of said products makes it unprofitable for violent individuals to push those legal drugs to underage users.

Please research your opinions before stating them as facts, lest we all become as ignorant as your like.

legalize and tax the heck out of it. For those that think this is their worst nightmare, take a look at what is going on right now. Smoking bath salts, huffing, and so many other very dangerious things the kids are doing to get high. I think it would be better them having pot that sniffing paint thinner.

Pot never hurt anyone, but the pursuit of it for profit has caused a lot of crime......

Sorry, Bob... The 'Race Card' you are playing has been worn out for years... I won't go over (AGAIN) the reasons why you are wrong- short story: Disgruntled campaign worker put out racist material under Ron Paul's name, was fired when it was discovered, said worker then tried to run against Ron Paul and was crushed. this story comes out of the woodwork EVERY time Ron Paul wins- probably because there's nothing else to attack him on. In his 30+ years in and out of public and private service, NO ONE can find ANYTHING remotely racist in anything he has ACTUALLY written or said. The head of the Austin, TX NAACP has repeatedly defended Ron Paul against these charges, but apparently some 'anonymous' poster carries more credibility. Give the smear tactics a rest, and debate on the issues. Oh, right... Ron Paul WINS when the issues are fairly debated!

Personally, I'd like to see drugs not only legalized, but also given away free of charge. Wouldn't be too long before the druggie herd would be self-thinned by the resulting ODs, suicides, stupor induced accidents and the like.

Spider.

LOL - What a warm and touching thought. And what a hateful little turd you clearly are! One of these days someone you care about is going to a problem with substance abuse and I want you to remember what you just wrote...

Remember it well, OK little man...

:)

feronia.--YES. Society must have laws. Yes we do need government. To say we do not is merely silly talk.

Drugs are just as bad or worst then alcohol, alcoholism and drug addiction are a major cause of death in the World, not just American. And legalizing drugs, like marijuana, will only increase it's use not just for adults but our young. I heard stories about 6 & 7 grades dealing in drugs, not even teenagers yet. But I guess those who ENJOY taking drugs don't care about our young, they soon will be adults and can choose for their selves, right?? We can't control our kids from smoking regular cigarettes, how do we expect to control their smoking of POT??? especially if it becomes legal. I thought we are banning smoking in public all over the country, now people want to legal marijuana, where do tell are you going to smoke IT?? Oh yea in your cars, or trucks, or homes, just like drinking and driving is not killing enough people especially young, now we can start killing them while they driving and are high on drugs.

Bob,

Can you read?

Seriously after Ron Pauls speach of giving the right to determine legalization of all drugs and you say he wants to legalize it all.

His whole base is that the decision is a STATE right not a FED right to determine.

People like you need to move on form crayons to books and papers. At this point you are just making stuff up and putting it out there.

Dr Paul makes it clear it is not the Fed Gov s job to determine right or wrong for drugs, that is a state level decision. Just showed your post to three Obama supporters here in my living room and even they say you are the "kook". Outsmarted by an Obamanite.....poor Bob.

If the angle of your LIE is to gain Obama supporters you are actually driving away the educated left.

RON PAUL 2012

We merely need laws against HARM and FRAUD...all else is tyranny. What was that Thomas Jefferson said?

"Rebellion to tyrants is Obedience to God."

Even an atheist can see civil disobedience to laws concerning nonviolent "crimes" would therefore be patriotism. Hence Henry David Thoreau, MLKjr., and Ghandi.

We need laws against Harm and Fraud...that's it. All else is BS control freak-ness.

Can't vote for a anti choice candidate. Ron Paul is anti choice.

Tunde Akins

Wow...my earlier post got collapsed... Ron Paul supporters are rabid...it seems that most posts that do not give him praise are collapsed... you guys need to take a chill pill...it's just politics.

REALLY????? Do you even live in the US? It is not "just politics". It's about our lives you bonehead. Get serious. We're not Rabid, we're just tired of the bulls$%t and sick of the government control.

Uneducated statement again. Why do you all assume your STATE Government won't enforce drug laws? Another decision allowed by the state. California pretty much legalized pot. Now we have feds there shutting down dispensaries. If we embraced Ron Paul, California and its voters would have the choice.

Another man weighs in on a subject he knows NOTHING about.........

He is not weighing in on the ACT of Abortion. He is weighing in on where in gov it should be determined at. If either of you care about the subject pick up your glasses and read. This is a states right item and...it is not treated as such now.

Abortion is a woman's right.

Abortion is a womans right to use as a system of birth control huh? So she made a error in judgement and an unborn child pays the price, must be something to have no morals.

would much rather see a woman have an abortion for an unwanted child than give birth and toture and murder that child down the road.

Again, Ayn Rand hated libertarians...and Paul is not an Objectivist. His son isn't named after Ayn Rand either.

Please stop lumping the two philosophies together because you don't FEEL like educating yourself about them.

Libertarians like Ayn Rand's FICTION works, but do not subscribe to her Social Darwinistic philosophy. She HATED libertarians for this reason...just look up her quotes on the Ayn Rand Institute's website!

FAIL.

dotsheriff

would much rather see a woman have an abortion for an unwanted child than give birth and toture and murder that child down the road.

And you sound like a ruthless monster, ever heard of adoption? Some people can't have children, so they adopt an unwanted child from the example you gave, there's no reason she would murder the child.

I'm trying to reconcile that one in my mind. Beyond his stance on abortion (as I understand it) I think he's my choice for 2012.

Abortion should not be a state's rights issue.......that is a way for him to speak out of both sides of his mouth......you know, hedge his bet. Abortion rights have to be protected by the federal government period or women will continue to be harassed from now on.

Since Roe vs Wade, 50,000,000 babies have been aborted, 82% for reasons of convenience per gocernment statistics. Many people don't know to this day that the plaintiff called Roe never had an abortion, lied about being raped, speaks out against abortion and how she was used by her 2 lawyers, sued the government over Roe vs Wade. Abortion is an issue because it ends the lives of children during their cycle of growth. Whether they are in a woman's womb or in a drawer, for that matter, abortion ends their life. A community, a country, who puts no value on unborn kids because a woman values herself more than another (a child) is an issue that will be revisited. Federal law is used regarding abortion, not to support women's rights, but to support the legal euthanasia of children.

its a continuation of the american eugenics program as margaret sanger was affiliated with it.

many also have claimed that it is racist.....was an effort to control the population of the "undesirables"

think about it...who has the most abortions?? the top 1 % or the bottom 99%? and who of the bottom 99 has the higher rat??? blacks do.

you can also insulate a home with straw in some regions of the country

Jesus was born in it Roger. What you hate straw, Jesus' mattress? You probably hate Jesus too. Are you in a cult with Mit?

In the past, haven't almost all straw poll winners ended up losing the election? Seems all the GOP runners are winning straw polls, so .... guess what that means!

I've never seen such an entertaining republican campaign. Who's on first. No, Who's on second, What's on first.

I'd say they are the three stooges but there are too many of them. LMAO

Glad to see you're entertained while your cowardly party runs NO ONE against the warmonger, torturer, drug warrior in-Chief Obama.

This is why I'm libertarian...I'm only Republican because of Ron Paul. Other than him, the whole two party false dichotomy is a symptom of psychopathy, LITERALLY.

Look up psychosis...one of the first symptoms is thinking in either/or fallacies, like blue or red, DemoCrip or RepubliBlood, etc. It's called a Black and White Fallacy...one of the first diagnosis points for psychopaths.

This whole nation suffers under a mass psychosis of false choices and fake either/ors.

Both of your Parties are shameful...and if not for Ron Paul I'd be ashamed to be voting Republican. If he loses, I'll NOT vote Republican...and either will 90%+ of his supporters based on internal polls they do. We actually have principles.

Even if he didn't win the gop nomination, go to the polls and write him in! At least it's not just giving up on our country...

Cain is a very, very ignorant man.

Besides, the GOP/TP will NEVER allow Cain to be their candidate........and I mean NEVER>

Monetfan

You do know Paul took California in the polling and they canceled Texas because he had a 20 point lead to the next closest candidate.

You do realize with Paul carrying those two states he is pretty much assured of the nomination?

What has you thinking he would not win the nomination?

that would be sweet for the dems

I am a Ron Paul supporter. But i realize there is no way in hell the Establishment will allow the rise of Dr. Paul. He is not their puppet, nor does he allow to be bought by large corporations. NATO doesn't want AMericans to leave the wars fields (then who would police the world??) so they will not allow RP to be president. The Supreme Courts will get involved if need be, to make sure a Status-Quo Puppet from the Establishment will represent the GOP. Very sad, but true.

Cain thinks the Federal Reserve is just great, headed their KC branch.

Since the FEd is why the economy bubbled and then busted, it MIGHT BE a deal breaker in voting for him for me...lol.

Can we just pick the only candidate in 2008 or now that predicted the economic collapse step by step as early as 2002? Ron Paul is that candidate...and you speak of Cain? Please.

So your against the Constitution then? Because that's what ron Paul stands for, first and foremost.

Ron Paul stands for HIS interpretation of the Constitution.......which is not the same thing.

At least he TRIES to follow the law of the land Kathryn, why are you so afraid of him anyway

Katie, the Constitution was written very specifically by our founding fathers to protect the rights of the citizen. Unfortunately many of our founding fathers were not so concerned about the rights of Black people or women. I think even Jefferson had slaves. In 1787 the Constitution was written to protect American citizens from the same type of tyrannical government they we fighting to gain freedom from. Since we won the revolutionary war the personal rights and freedoms in the Constitution have been scrutinized by world governments and powerful influences. I fail to see any valid evidence for your argument. It is sort of like saying George Bush didn't violate his interpretation of the Geneva Convention by authorizing torture. All the evidence I have seen shows Ron Paul clearly interprets the Constitution in a manner consistent with civil liberties. And I know you pro-choice people think he is out to make abortion illegal when actually nothing is further from the truth, he would leave it up to states. Another thing to remember no matter where you stand on the still very controversial subject of abortion is, there is no mention of abortion in the Constitution. You can judge Ron Paul, a guy who has delivered over 4000 babies as just another man who knows nothing on the issue but it is unfair and inaccurate to accuse him of interpreting the Constitution incorrectly.

We currently have a president assassinating US citizens overseas. Refusing to close Gitmo. Basically violating the constitution every step he takes.

And you are questing Ron Paul for supporting the Constitution.

Really?

You seem to have fallen victim to incramentalism. Check it out..Ron Paul has hundreds of pages on it.

Mark, Obama tried to close Gitmo. Your guys blocked it.

So much for your credibility on the Constitution...

Obama is still responsible for violating the constitutional right of an American born citizen to due process before assasinating him. He is just as bad, no, worse than the Republicans.

Kathryn is just another corporate stooge, just here to badmouth the only politician that is there to take our country back from their control and put it, as it belongs, back to being a government run by the people and for the people.

Uh, Prohibition? Bush did that once or twice under his administration. I didn't hear you complain then.

Actually, I was, I was protesting when Bush lost the election in 2000 and had to use the supreme court to get into the POTUS seat, and I was protesting every action taken under his commnd during the entire 8 years.

When it came time for the '08 elections, I voted for Hillary, because I was thinking, the first Clinton in office helped fix our economy after Reaganomics and Bush1 had it going downhill, maybe putting in another Clinton could help it if they got another go, but it seems the rest of the country wanted Obama. I didn't have any problems while he was in office, the way I saw things, the only reason nothing was changing was because congress was refusing to let him do anything.

Until last week. When a US born citizen is assasinated overseas, without due process guaranteed by our Constitution, I've got a big problem with it. Not even Bush, as bad as he was, went that far, even under his administration, at least they captured John Walker Lindh and brought him home to face his day in court. But Obama overstepped his role, bigtime. I'm ABSOLUTELY SICK of anyone thinking they can wipe their ass with our Constitution. So now, I am all for the ONLY candidate that stands up for the Constitution. Ron Paul is the only one who will do what he says, because corporations can't use him like the puppet the rest of Washington is.

And of course, he appeals to me on a personal level, because of his stance on ending the failed drug war. He might be a Republican, but his ideas appeal to my Liberal side.

Except that he doesn't mean them. He claims to be a libertarian but is anti-choice. That's despicable, he might as well join with the other theocrats on the issue. As to eliminating Awlaki, he took up arms against this country and it wasn't possible to capture him. The same fate awaited Benedict Arnold but unfortunately we didn't have Predators in 1779. If this is too complicated an issue for you to understand, then you deserve to have some rich doctor like Paul as your president, good luck with that.

Don't say WE blocked closing GITMO...Obama could do it on his own anyway...it's illegal and he's the top law enforcer in the nation. You know...Executive Branch? Executes the laws!

Besides WE didn't block anything. Ron Paul supporters always, ALWAYS, supported closing GITMO. What you mean is run-of-the-mill pro-war Republicans and Democrats blocked it. Remember, you guys had both houses...show me where Ron Paul voted against closing GITMO!

WE didn't block anything...WE side with REAL liberals on this issue (as we do on corporate personhood being a fraud). WE are on the right side of this. Don't lump US in with THEM other Republicans...as we won't be voting Republican is Ron Paul doesn't get the nomination. WE'll vote third Party and let you crazies sort out which warmonger, torturer, drug warrior you want to wreck our country for 4 more years.

And many libertarians are anti-abortion. The small government libertarians are of the belief it is a State's Right. The reason is, life is protected in the Constitution...therefore abortion would be homocide. That means, like all forms of homocide, it is up to the State's to decide if it is murder per se, justifiable, or what have you. It's also always been up to the State's to set punishments for homocide, or lack thereof. So if California wants legal abortion, that's fine. If Texas doesn't that's fine.

Personally I'm not for abortion, but I'm also of the opinion it's a women's issue, and none of my male business. I'm also libertarian...and a lot smaller government than most libertarians claim to be. So, I don't necessarily agree with Ron Paul on the issue....but let me ask you this:

If Bush, Bush, and Reagan were all three against abortion but it never got legislated away, what makes you think we'll get an Amenedment to the Constitution to change that now?

Ron Paul is a Constitutionalist...and Constitutionally there is only one way to overrule the Supreme Court...an Amendment. So what is your problem with an personal opinion he can't do anything about anyway?

And Ron also supports the morning after pill...so what about that? Isn't that giving women an option? He isn't an absolutist on rape and incest...so why not cut him some slack?

Tetrapoda
Except that he doesn't mean them. He claims to be a libertarian but is anti-choice. That's despicable, he might as well join with the other theocrats on the issue. As to eliminating Awlaki, he took up arms against this country and it wasn't possible to capture him. The same fate awaited Benedict Arnold but unfortunately we didn't have Predators in 1779. If this is too complicated an issue for you to understand, then you deserve to have some rich doctor like Paul as your president, good luck with that.

Except that you must be illiterate. Or maybe just ignorant? Once again: Even the Bush administration(who wasn't shy about trampling on most of our constitutional rights after 9/11) wouldn't go there, they were able to capture John Walker Lindh(the media called him the American Taliban), after he took up arms against us fighting with Al Quaeda, and they brought him here to stand trial for his actions. So, how is it that Bush wasn't willing to cross that line, but Obama did? It's INEXCUSABLE!!!

As for your comment on Ron Paul being anti-choice? That doesn't even make a lick of sense, he's for taking alot of power away from the government, and returning that power to the states, so things such as drug legalization, would be the states choice, not the Feds. Does that sound like anti-choice? If anything, it's letting them govern themselves, which gives us alot more choice than we have now.

Prohibition doesn't work:

...they were able to capture John Walker Lindh(the media called him the American Taliban), after he took up arms against us fighting with Al Quaeda, and they brought him here to stand trial for his actions.

You undermine your otherwise reasonable argument when you entertain items which are not true. Perhaps you did not know:

John Walker, when a little older than seventeen, lost his heart to Islam after reading a translation of the Koran and wanted to be able to read it in the original...went East to study - Pakistan, Kashmir, Afghanistan.

In youthful vigor and idealism got caught up in the fighting, alongwith the Taliban, against some very unsavoury proxy of Iran - The Northern Alliance - who were looting murdering and raping the countryside...9/11 had yet to be!

After 9/11, United States entered the fray on the side of The Northern Alliance. Attacked the Taliban when they refused to handover OBL, who was their guest. A guest has greater protection than ones own kin, under the commands of the Koran and Torah. The Taliban, who genuinely believe in these Books, thus came under the US/TNA/Iranian proxy attack...a complicated situation!

John Walker was injured, a military caliber bullet went through him, while fighting The Northern Alliance. He did not, could not, know that his country had allied with the 'Bad Guys'. With bullets yet festering in him...he was captured, disrobed, kept naked, beaten, starved, raped, tortured and humiliated...essentially because he had become Muslim and would not revert to Christianity - even under CIA 'interrogation'- all this happened in Afghanistan.

He was brought to the US, after legal action taken by his well situated Californian father; and was given 20years after a perfunctory trial. Because of the abrogation of the Constitution after 9/11 no one dared to question this sentence - stand up for this lost kid which was had always been the American Way!

John Walker was, is, NOT a traitor - just a kid caught between his idealism, a hard place, and circumstances beyond his control. Had he not been Muslim - 9/11 Blood Libel Scapegoat - there would be no case against him and he would be a free man today in the open world, as he is in his soul!

And judging from those words, you would sound like a terrorist sympathizer to most of the presidential advisers. I'd be watching out for any red laser beams aimed at your forehead. Or else a predator drone flying above. Obamas still in power, you could be his next target...

That "American citizen" lived in the US until he was seven years old, he went back to the birthplace of his parents where he lived until he came back to the US to go to College. He renounced his citizenship and he was involved in the murder of several soldiers in the Ft Hood mass murder. He made videos denouncing the US. We are at war ant this person was a traitor. The punishment for treason in time of war is death.

The same old rhetoric... And what country is America, in fact, at war with?, please do tell us, because I still have yet to hear a straight answer.

Oh, and by the way... you need to correct your statement, to the actual FACTS in this matter:

"He allegedly renounced his citizenship and he was allegedly involved in the murder of several soldiers in the Ft Hood mass murder. He made videos denouncing the US."

See, how that works? He never got his trial, so those things you stated, are allegations, ooh thats a big word, lets see what it means?

An allegation (also called adduction) is a claim of a fact by a party in a pleading, which the party claims to be able to prove. Allegations remain assertions without proof, until they can be proved.

See they never went to trial, so they were never proven, because HE WAS MURDERED FIRST!!!

Since the videos are factual evidence, we know he made them, they fall under free speach, remember?

To all you "leave it up to the states" guys - please study recent history. Roe v. Wade (using the Constitution as a guide) allowed women the right to the privacy of their own bodies. Since 1976, the Congress of the United States and subsequent Supreme Court actions have given this right back to the states to control, little by little, so by this point most states tightly control this Constitutional right. Check your own state's laws concerning when, where and how an abortion may be obtained, your right to the privacy of your own body be damned.

Do not believe that your state legislature has any better idea concerning personal rights and responsibilities than the federal government. They are mostly old, white men as well.

I love this answer to a question he was asked at a debate about being a republican

http://youtu.be/pZ_Z_XG0L2c

Yeah! That's where I saw this before. Too bad they all died.

How much did the corporate lobbyists pay you for coming up with that mindless rhetoric? Sorry, but the truth is the only thing Ron Paul is bad for is the corporate control of the nation!

Those of us that resepct our founding fathers, and the Constitution that Obama crapped on last week want him out, and Ron Paul in!

.....yes indeed and the GOP/TP can't stand it.....

The war on terror can't be won, it's not even a real war. The longer the military remains the more Muslims will come to fight against them. Muslims don't like the US military invading their lands. They also don't like the US military slaughtering men, women and children indiscriminately.

..

If you want to find out what corporate control is doing in America here is the address

ampedstatus.org/full report the economic elite vs the people of the United States of America

marshall, sorry... you are delusional. Terrorism has been around for centuries. Furthermore , terrorism is not just those acts created by religious extremist. There is no protection from the disenchanted except due diligence, and even then that is not always enough.

kathryn - we know better, but if obama wants to send out assassination squads and brag about it then we all know what his final solution is for terrorists and dissenters as well.

You ever walked down the street and found a 5 or 10 dollar bill?

That's Obama ...he was just lucky to have Bin Laden taken out on his watch...the gears were already turning to take him out before Obama ever took office, and he probably was as surprised as us, if it even happened...how could Obama take credit? he's been on vacation for over two years!

Ron Paul 2012

according to some people, those protesting Wall Street's hostile takeover of our government are terrorists, anyone willing to stand up to corruption and dictatorial power are terrorists to those powers It's a stupid name for a war waged by the self-proclaimed greatest nation in the world against people living in third world conditions

Obama has basically said the people protesting Wall Street are protesting against the very core of the USA

Again Obama forgets the Constitution and Bill of Rights are the CORE of the USA

"Winning the war on terror"?? What is your definition of winning? There simply is NO END to terrorism. They will hate us as long as they are breeding. It's a cycle that goes round and round and will never end. Besides, many people voted for O because he PROMISED to withdraw troops immediately. Not only did he NOT bring home the troops, he sent over MORE troops AND then he started his own war in Libya without getting congressional approval. So Libya is Obama's War and he is using billions of dollars that could have been used on helping America. And nobody even knows who the heck the rebels are and we are giving them weapons and guns. Let's hope they don't use those weapons on our allies....or on us.

Winning the war on terror? LOL. So you think killing women and children, torturing people, assasinating USA citizens without trial, etc. is winning?

Some liberal you are.

You can't beat a tactic, or kill away bad hateful violent IDEAS. Did we genocide the KKK? Or did we largley ignore them as to not give them recruitment posters, and watched them fade into obscurity where they belong. The Klan has been a terrorist organization deemed by Congress since the 1860s...they still exist, but are not a major threat anymore. See how to WIN now?

WAR is declared. It's declared against armies, nations, governments, etc.

We declared no war here.

Al Queda isn't an army, navy, air force, nation, or government.

They are a gang, much like the Barbary Pirates were. How did we deal with them?

Letters of Marque and Reprisal.

There's that pesky Constitution again!

Ron Paul tried to use L of M&R to deal with Bin Laden, but instead we took 10 years due to a pseudo WAR we never declared

Try boning up on history, the Constitution, and what liberalism is all about.

It isn't about endless warmongering and occupations of foreign lands.

For you guys that want a revolution, I don't think you know what that even is. Look it up in the dictionary. Is what you want so important you would risk your life and your families lives? And besides some of you can't accept the fact that the south lost the Civil War. I think some of you want to go back and refight that. Why don't you get those values you used to have out of the junk pile you have stuck them in and try respect, courtesy and intelligence for a little while at least? Those values and qualities don't seem to be found much at least in all the Republican/teaparty candidates that I have seen. What is wrong with just stating what you stand for and cut the Obama bashing and blame games. We don't need a revolution. We need some intelligence and respect in politics and also the guts to stand up to the guys who bought you your office.

When you talk about Obamas war in Libya it does not even begin to compare with the trillions lost in the Bush fiascos. And now some of the same people who said go and stay at war are upset because Obama is killing the terrorist leaders.What was the wars for if you didn't want to kill the leaders? I think Obama has done great as far as extricating ourselves from places we never should have been in the first place. Nice try. Spend all the money, lose face with the entire world, get ourselves in wars we can't get out of and wreck out country but blame it on the next president. I voted for and supported Bush but now I realize he was an abject failure. However, I don't think Kerry or McCain, or Dole or Gore would have been one teeny bit better. Why don't we have more quality presidential material and then why don't we realize it is there when it is actually there? Obama is quality presidential material. Many just don't realize it yet! Imagine where we might be if we didn't have the opposition party of no and obstruction. Make that Boehners part of h no!

As one of our great forefathers once proclaimed: "Give Me Liberty, or Give Me Death!" I would absolutely die protecting my Constitutional rights, I made an oath to protect it from ALL enemies, both foreign and DOMESTIC, when I went into the service, and our current government, is proving themselves, over and over again to be an enemy of Our Constitution. In the same spirit of our patriot forefathers, I am doing my patriotic duty to vote for THE ONLY CANDIDATE that will stand up for the Constitution, and if he doesn't win, and instead some other candidate goes into office, that continues to prove himself an enemy to it, then I must do my duty to help take our government back from the control of corporations, and put it back to the state the forefathers intended, a government "By the People, and For the People".

Both Bush and Obama have done great injustices to Our Consitution, and consistently sell our rights and freedoms granted by it down the river to the highest bidding corporation. THIS. MUST. STOP.

And his stance isn't about racism...it's about property rights...and an even more important principal...

...Rights voted in can be later voted out. Natural Rights recognized by the Supreme Court cannot be voted out.

Civil Rights are voted in...and can be later voted out. Let that simmer in your mind a moment.

Natural Rights, the Rights our cowardly Supreme Court never recognized for blacks, any minorities, or women, let alone non-land owners, are not up for a vote.

So why settle for Civil Rights when truely you are entitled, yes ENTITLED, to equal Natural Rights like all male, white, land-owning peoples?

So you call us racist to point this truth out...place no blame on the Courts that's deserve it for their treacherous cowardess....and act as if this makes us the bad guys.

Way to practice sophistry...or worse, intellectual laziness.

exactly

sure pass civil rights....what it accomplished was the violation of EVERYONES rights.

It's because the media is run by yet another corporation. Them talking about how well Ron Paul is doing is just like a DEA agent, or a cartel boss saying we should legalize drugs.

The GOP does not want, nor will it allow either Cain or Paul to be the candidate.....they both say weird stuff like repeal Civil Rights and womens choice to the stupid observation that "black folks have been brainwashed by the Dems" to it is a secret as to who wrote my economic plan......

Nice try on twisting the sound bites KS.

kathryn: You have now idea what you are talking about. Do some reading and listen to ron paul speak. You are just repeating what your tv tells you, over and over and over. Stop spreading ignorance.

Ron Paul could not win the election. That is a fact. Now you may not like it. However, your dislike has nothing to do with fact. This cry$$$ "its the medias fault" is not correct. Ron Paul can not win. Period.

Tactical

Is that you Obama posting again on here? I thought you were playing a round of golf.

Don't listen to Katie; she is just upset that, "another man" has an opinion on the issue of abortion that she does not support. People that make that argument imply that because the woman suffers the pain and trauma of child bearing and birth that men have no legitimate right to a philosophical or moral judgment on abortion. That because men are incapable of giving birth they should have no right to tell the woman what she should do. I wonder what happens when we flip that argument in favor of men. A reasonable man could argue that since he has no parental rights of the unborn child that if he wanted the woman to have an abortion and she doesn’t it was her decision to have that child and he should bear no financial responsibility for that child. How can you justify the belief that as men we are not allowed to protect our unborn children but we should be obligated to financially support them?

truth hurts-ron paul cannot beat obama

Progressivegirl...nonsense. Ron would split Obama's base in half like the Red Sea. Who else but Ron would call out Obama on torture, secret prisons, warmongering, drug warrior BS, GITMO, etc., etc.,etc., I can go on for a year with all the left wing issues REAL liberals were betrayed on by Obama.

See libertarians aren't Left or Right...we are of the belief that's all nonsense. We have principles...and half of those principles REAL liberals/progrssives agree with....and Obama seems to agree with them in speeches, not action.

So, Ron Paul would mop the floor with Obama, garnering huge far left support.

I bet Dennis Kucinich, Ralph Nader, and some others would even endorse Ron Paul over Obama.

You know I'm right...be afraid, very afraid...lol. To suggest otherwise is nonsense. Take off your blinders.

I used to think Obama was doing his best too, until he wiped his ass with the Constitution last week, murdering an American citizen without due process. There is NO EXCUSE for him on that one. I believe in the Liberty granted to us in our most sacred document, and NO PRESIDENT has the right to take that away from us.

Personally, I'm surprised noone has tried assasinating either Bush2 or Obama yet. I'm thinking a veteran, since when enlisting, we take the oath to defend our Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic, and Bush showed he was an enemy to the constitution when he introduced the Patriot Act, and now Obama has shown it by assasinating a US citizen without due process. Both of them deserved impeachment after their actions, at the very least. Although, I'd prefer to see them both hanged for treason.

Good lord I have been around for almost 70 years and Ron Paul has been running for President about that long too. I have listened to his crazy proposal's every election cycle and am tired of him calling what he supports libertarinism.......everybody has free choice or no one does.....Ron Paul picks and chooses.

Prohibition doesn't work-

Personally, I'm surprised no one has tried assassinating either Bush2 or Obama yet. Both of them deserved impeachment after their actions, at the very least. Although, I'd prefer to see them both hanged for treason.

Do you not see anything wrong with your text? Does this come across as "American" to you? You deserve 'due process' yourself, gasbag.

topjimmy

if the president violates the constitution and commits acts of treason...there should be punishment.

I get a kick out of this "violates the Constitution" bit...what the hell does that mean?!!!!!! Can someone who has half a brain please explain what this means? How does some dimwitted imbicile on the street know what "violates the Constitution" means...seriously!!! and who interprets what exactly "violates the Constitution?" Do you braindead teabaggers actually understand how much you benefit from interpretations of our Constitution by the Supreme Court? Are you some mindless drones who rehash all this crap you hear about on television. Do you have any clue what is constitutional and what is not???? Do you even know what is written in the Constitution and the court cases that have challenged it?

The Constitution gives clear authority to certain branches of government to do certain things and to regulate certain economic policies. If the high court decides that something is unconstitutional, then that is for them to decide. Since when is it some teabagger or some idiot on the streets role to decide what is constitutional and what is not? If you don't like something the court decides, get your congressman to sponsor an amendment to the Constitution...simple as that!!! Get off this "violates the Constitution" bandwagon.

You want to hear how both Bush2 and Obama have violated our Constitutional rights?

Okay, I will list the first few I can think of immediately, in thier order within the Bill of Rights, rather than in order that they happened:

• Second Amendment – Militia (United States), Sovereign state, Right to keep and bear arms.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

Medical marijuana patients cannot legally have guns or ammunition, according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

In an open letter dated Sept. 21, Arthur Herbert, the assistant director of enforcement programs and services at the ATF, wrote that federal law prohibits unlawful users or addicts of controlled substances from possessing firearms or ammunition.

This is actually an act of the ATF, but as the POTUS, it is OBAM's responsibility to veto it, due to it being a direct violation of the 2nd ammendment. His lack of action, is the same as his acting on it.

Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Of course, the most obvious action by Bush, that violates this, is the Patriot Act. But then, there is also the TSA, which illeagally searches innocent citizens on a daily basis, without any sort of probable cause.

• Fifth Amendment – due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, eminent domain.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

• Sixth Amendment – Trial by jury and rights of the accused; Confrontation Clause, speedy trial, public trial, right to counsel

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Then, most recently, there is the murder of a US-born citizen by "executive order", that was not given due process, violating both his 5th and 6th ammendment rights.

These rights are pretty much self-explanitory, you can argue "the court interprets it as this or that" all you want, but it doesn't make it right. I could take a Bible, and interpret it that I should go out and kill all homosexuals, because it talks about it being wrong. But that doesn't make it right, does it?

And as for getting our government to change things? That's what's wrong, our current government is treading on our rights on a daily basis, to give more freedoms to their corporate puppetmasters. They don't want to fix the corruption!

No I don't agree with you.........I don't want government starved......women know small government is not good for them and their children.

john...Don't vote and don't whine...!!

Government is good, when it works. Doesn't matter if it's big or small. Blatant paranoia is the machinations of weak-minded.

Small government is only not good for women if the are on welfare.

kathryn - all that revenue spent on servicing our debt. That must really hurt you to know that all those dollars aren't going to your precious womens programs. I bet a smaller government would mean a more cognizant government for wiser spending.

Actually I think that a lot of our governments discretionary spending would better serve the populace by eliminating it completely and letting each group raise their own funding.

Katheryn, Women and Small children will suffer greatly once the New World Order (Libs and DEMOs and RINOs) crush our country. It will be every male for themselves. And since most males don't think enough of their women or children to marry da babbies momma, it will be especially hard for the most defenceless of society. The Gov will not protect you, they barely protect you now. LOL!

With a Republican Field So LOUSY, It seems like Obama is almost certain to win.

Hey John, or should I call you Jared. How did you get a line to the intenet? I thought they were watching you pretty close now Loughner. LMAO

Everyone knows Romney will be the candidate. Some are just in denial. Mona Charin--The idiot of pundit world said it today. She had written that Romny could not win the nomination and about all the things bad about him a few months ago. Now, she loves him and has fallen in love with his campaign. LMAO

If the christians are the right's base then, watch out if they don't vote for Romney. Ouch , obama wims

Dark Horse: is a term used to describe a little-known person or thing that emerges to prominence, especially in a competition of some sort

A Dark Horse candidate is someone you settle for at the Nominating Convention when you can't agree on the front runners.

Can you say Huntsman?

I like Paul/Kucinich personally...but not a bad call...lol.

get a grip son, you are floundering! Jobs had the vision to simplify, the ability to inspire others to perform at their best and had his own brilliant take on marketing. How else do you think that Apple is sitting on about $67 billion in cash, apple as being one of the two top companies in the world and his (jobs) personal net worth is north of $5 billion. Bet all those overseas laborers just love him.

Suffice it to say that Jobs was in the same league as ford and edison. And just like ford and edison he died.

marshal--Paul may be obsolete to you. But, he is right. And by your comment I can tell you are very young. You will live to rue the day all this computer and networking stuff was invented. This was the beginning of a one world order.

tactical45:

I used to think the same thing until I tried to google earth the other day with my 40 lb royal manual typewriter. Needless to say it was useless.

I'm getting close to throwing away my typewriter eraser, bond paper and carbon paper and investing in a computer. But....am a little concerned that I might be buying into the one world order.

"grins"

collapse--That was good I must admit.

Yeah Collapse, but you still need a paint scraper to get all that whiteout off your monitor. LOL

Except Ron Paul did talk about Steve Jobs...who BTW is capitalist hero of free market innovation WITHOUT government favortism helping him along. He wasn't a cronie capitalist scumbag, and Ron Paul can be YouTubed talking about Jobs....FAIL.

Why do so many people think that anything to do with computers or technology is trying to establish a "one world order"? My uncle's one of them-he will never buy a computer because he's afraid the government will use his computer to spy on him. How have so many people in America bought into this kind of paranoia? I haven't been able to get a straight, intelligent answer so far. Does anyone on here think you can provide it for me?

By "neo-nuts" you must mean neoconservative...

...but Obama is a neoconservative Democrat.

The neocons like Kristol, Gingrich, Cheney all support Obama on his foreign policy of neocon war to all.

Ron Paul hates neoconservatism and it's warmongering, drug warrioring, torturing, etc.,etc.

Obama is a warmonger, drug warrior, torturer, etc.,etc.,etc.

So you support a neocon while dogging an anti-neocon because he isn't a DemoCrip, he happens to be a RepubliBlood?

Sophist much?

Ah, that's better. The blurb before had coffee at a quarter a cup. LOL

Ron Paul or Herman Cain would make Obama look stupid in a one on one Debate! Shoot Obama didn't even know how many states we have!

Let's See Havard grad(obama) vs. republican candidates in debates(all uneducated sounding, wrong facts .

who wins?

Nice grammar there progressivegirl. Or should I call you, .... illegal immigrant aka Obama propaganda puppet?

Progressivegirl,

Didn't Bush receive his MBA from "Havard"?

YouTube Ron Paul on Dylan Ratigan...he supports (and predicted) the Wall Street protests. Blind partisanship FAILS again versus libertarian principles!

Barack Obama is an extremist nut case who won't win the Democratic or any other party's nomination. WAKE UP YOUNG PEOPLE OF AMERICA!!!

Extremist nut= predicted the economic collapse step by step on the floor of the House in a speech in 2002, and predicted 9/11 attacks in a speech on the House floor as late as July 2001.

I'll vote for this extremist, thanks.

Extremist or not, he makes damn accurate predictions none of these other lying politicians do, and that leads me to believe he can solve these problems logically.