Egilman, the above article is all in Paul's words. Are you saying First Read is using some quote out of context?

Actually, Egilman, I think most of us on the left will sit this out and watch those on the right eat each other up.

However, one point of Dr. Paul's irked me (I am married to a Navy vet), about the a/c. Now, these young men and women do not make the policy that sends them to all these places. They just do their duty and go. So, you want these wonderful young people to suffer over political policy? Sorry. Can't buy into that one.

Egilman: I know you and I can't agree on this. But as my friend IR might say: Paul is more than a quarter bubble off of level.

phinephancy. Ron Paul is a veteran, just like your husband (though he was Air Force). He doesn't want to hurt veterans by "not giving them AC" (which btw.... is probably the least of anyone's worries in a war). He wants to PROTECT veterans lives by bringing them home and protecting OUR country. I would think as a liberal you would understand that greatly.

No, he's not nuts as you suggest. You just don't agree with what he has to say. I am voting for Ron Paul. A lot of people in Iowa are voting for Ron Paul as well. Are you suggesting that we're all nuts?

I know that he has said all of these things and I don't have a problem with them because I believe in his philosophy. Clearly you don't...and that's ok.

Your whole rant on "air conditioning" is just bizarre. People survived for thousands of years without it. You are playing the "you don't support the troops" game and it doesn't work. Perhaps you can see the comment from the perspective of the outrageous amount of money spent on wars we shouldn't really be in. Ron Paul agreed to go after Al queda, but not to go nation-building and seeking regime changes. We shouldn't be in Iraq, and we shouldn't be nation-building in Afghanistan. We shouldn't have had anything to do with Libya as it wasn't a threat to our national security. We shouldn't go into Iran unless we have irrefutable evidence that an attack is imminent. If we have to go to war, for a good reason, declare it in Congress, go and fight it, and win it. I've heard Ron Paul say that many times. We shouldn't be defending countries in Europe and Asia on the taxpayers dime. The cold war is over, and the so-called communist domino-effect never came to pass.

Phine,

He wants the troops to come home saving billions, from a large sense that is a reasonable position and unassailable, so politically how do you fight an unassailable position, divide it up into little pieces and twist the little piece into something unreasonable. The Air Conditioning argument is a perfect example of this tactic. Yes we would save 20 million on the costs of air conditioning "if the troops weren't there in the first place" So the twist is they want you to believe that Dr Paul would rather have our troops dying of heat.

Nothing could be farther from the truth, but they get him to speak to the miniscule portion they have chosen to pick out in the attempt to radicalize the overall message. Unfortunately like any honest person, he is vulnerable to this type of attack. How he needs to handle this is learn to side step the minutiae and stick with the overall message. The establishment is trained in this, it is why we all complain that we never really get a clear answer to our questions, and why they carefully chose who will ask the questions. Unfortunately, as the outsider, he is going to get hit with this from all sides. It's a tactic that will lose them an election.

Newday,

I know we cant sweetheart, but at least I have no fear we cannot keep the conversation civil. (hopefully serve as an example to the more rabid of our friends out there)

I'm going to stay away from the minutiae in this and try to deal with the most outrageous accusations. I'm also going to try to stay unemotional in this also, but some out there might make that difficult. So please accept my apologies if my emotions seem to overload at times, it's not personal, I am human.

Jay, not giving our troops a/c in a country where temps are over 100 degrees is not a very humane way to do business. And if you really think that the folks at home really care if the troops are suffering......

Only 1% of the American public has any interest in what happens to those brave young men and women. Taking away a/c to their tents is just a way to get other politicians to try and play the game your way. And the only ones to suffer are our soldiers - who just follow orders, not make policy.

Your arguments are ridiculous. I hate war, and want our young people home. But, if they are serving, I want only the best for them, not have them used as political pawns.

@Egilman

Sorry, but I really get upset when our young people are used for political gamesmanship. Especially since such a small part of our population even has "skin" in this game.

I wouldn't call him "nuts". Instead realize that he approaches the whole idea of government and what it can/should do from a vastly different angle. He believes that government by its very nature is always going to be wrong and that the US would be better if we had an isolationist foreign policy and limited government.

Some of that is actually somewhat sensible.

Take drugs. We already see a political force forming that will attempt to make MJ legal for medical reasons and probably then for all things. A friend of mine happened ot watch a program that took 4 habitual drug users (1 marijuana, 1 cocaine, 1 heroin, 1 meth) and put them through different situations. One thing they discovered was that the marijuana user effectively had no short term memory. The put him through a driving test clean and then allowed him to smoke up. He was then retested and remembered nothing of the route. Other tests proved that the drug had some rather nasty side effects on the human brain, and yet people want to legalize it. [I did not see the program and am working from discussions about it}.
The whole reason drugs were banned is based on the "government knows best" fallacy. People tried to make government the arbiter of right and wrong in this case and won enough policial power to force their views on others. They do have some valid points, as the show proved drugs are nasty and do a lot of harm to their users. Yet, there also is little question that the "war on drugs" is a massive and costly failure. Ron Paul says he wants to end the ban.

Good? Bad? I'd say both, as both sides have arguments. The one thing I would call it is "nuts."

And that is true of most of Ron Paul's positoins, although the drug one drives a lot of his supporters. I could find just about every one of his positoins and argue both sides of the equation. Overall, I tend to agree with him position, although I think its taken to the extreme and often the potential costs are ignored.

In truth I don't believe Ron Paul has a prayer. He's too anti-government to get many social conservative votes as they tend to vote for any Grand Old Pervert who says the right things about abortion law and legislating morality. But I will admit he makes for an interesting character and might add a little to any discusions about the real purpose and value of government.

But Phine... YOU are the one using them for political games. Ron Paul wouldn't have them in those 100 degree countries anyway! So this whole air conditioning thing is a moot point. I care about our soldiers. I don't want them dying in foreign lands. When one of my best friends was in Afghanistan I cried every day, desperately hoping for his return (which, thankfully, happened). My sister's fiance was just in Iraq. My grandfathers are both vets. Don't tell me I don't care about our military. I just agree with Ron Paul that a) we shouldn't be in these countries and b) the expenditures from the war, like 20 billion spent on AC are outrageous, and are a huge reason why our country is in major financial problems!

He has the best ground game in Iowa, but he doesn't have the same organization elsewhere. The way the polls have shifted no one is going to know who is in the lead until the votes are counted.

Phine @ #1.17

No skin in the game, boy do I understand that, I no longer have a nephew because of the war in the 'stan, he died trying to disarm a piece of unexploded ordnance. Usually they destroy them in place but they couldn't do this because it was next to a hospital. He was standing over it when it went off. I remember the look on his mothers face when she found out that it was an empty casket funeral. She didn't get to say goodbye not even to a little bit. I could tell you about my father who went in the Feb.42 and didn't get out until Jan '54, or my father-in-law's two tours in the jungle.

I understand skin in the game, we have more than most in our family. I really appreciate your husbands service, please tell him Thank You from me.

I trust the troops who support Dr Paul more than any other candidate.

@Phine:

Ron Paul is nuts. This article proves it.

Merry Christmas! :)

20 billion on a.c. for warriors...geez what a bunch of nancies the politicians are...soldiers, thanks for serving, i know you guys were just following orders...ron paul...he's not nuts, but uses logic in a way that many of us don't agree with...but i'd pick him in a heartbeat over the others, at least you can see clear into the man and understand where he's coming from and what he wants to do as opposed to the other candidates, who are mirror images of each other intellectually, and scarily reminiscent of bush jr. alot of these things he wants to do can make anyone wince, but really, is he really gonna be able to do even one of those things on his own as president? nope. no way. the feds won't let him, the people won't let him. so while he's in office, i can see him as a good president who knows how to think and react to certain situations, and i can also see that he probably wouldn't be able to follow through on most of what he wants to do, thanks to the people of america. like i said, i don't agree with what he says but i like him a helluva lot better than the other runner-ups and he'd still be under control in the office...

It's very easy to quote Paul out of context or to label his positions as "nuts", and it's quite unorginal and lacking in thought actually. Brilliant people have articulated his same positions, and for this reason alone I would find it quite a worthy endevour to at least rationally refute these positions. If as you say they are "nuts", you must be chomping at the bit to easily and mercilessly deconstruct his crazy ideas. Shrugging them away as weird, wacky or nuts makes you all look like flat-earthers, shrugging away a potential truth because it seems counter-intuitive. To many who have rationally and methodically studied these issues, they no longer appear counter-intuitive.

To the air conditioning argument... Would it perhaps be more reasonable to assume that Paul was making a grander point about the amount of dollars spent on militarism and how much could be saved if we weren't housing thousands of troups in the deserts of other countries? Admitedly, it's easier to take the quote out of context and presume that he proposes policies that would kill thousands of soldiers from heat stroke. Really? Use your heads!

Ron Paul for PRESIDENT!!!!!!!!!

phinephancy-4252115

Do the Paul supporters even KNOW he has said these things? If so, how can they condone it?

Yes we know he’s “said these things” unfortunately, they’ve all mostly been taken out of context, just like y’all are always saying they do to President Obama, It happens to every single candidate and unfortunately not all voting Americans are smart enough to realize they should do a little research about what was actually said instead of just listening to what the media tells them was said.

mvargus

I wouldn't call him "nuts". Instead realize that he approaches the whole idea of government and what it can/should do from a vastly different angle. He believes that government by its very nature is always going to be wrong and that the US would be better if we had an isolationist foreign policy and limited government.

The government will only be wrong when they don’t follow the constitution, he is NOT an isolationist (sorry this one always galls me to the point of wanting to scream) he believes in non-interventionism HUGE difference in the two words. We keep our nose out of everyone else’s business unless it’s a threat to us personally, then if need be we get a declaration of war, go in do our job and get out period, we cannot afford to be the policemen of the world.

And as far as the legalizing drugs prostitution here are his full quotes:

On Drugs: We don't need laws to tell us to not use heroin

Q: You say that the federal government should stay out of people's personal habits, including marijuana, cocaine, even heroin.

A: It's an issue of protecting liberty across the board. If you have the inconsistency, then you're really not defending liberty. We want freedom [including] when it comes to our personal habits.

Q: Are you suggesting that heroin and prostitution are an exercise of liberty?

A: Yes, in essence, if we leave it to the states. For over 100 years, they WERE legal. You're implying if we legalize heroin tomorrow, everyone's gonna use heroin.

How many people here are going to use heroin if it were legal? I bet nobody! "Oh yeah, I need the government to take care of me. I don't want to use heroin, so I need these laws!"

A: I never thought heroin would get applause!

Source: 2011 GOP primary debate in South Carolina May 5, 2011

On Health Care: Legalizing prostitution is about protecting liberty

Q: You say that the federal government should stay out of people's personal habits, including marijuana. You feel the same about prostitution and gay marriage. Why should social conservatives vote for you?

A: They will, if they see that my defense of liberty is the defense of their right to practice religion and say their prayers where they want. It's an issue of protecting liberty across the board. We don't have the First Amendment so we can talk about the weather. We have the First Amendment so we can say very controversial things. If you have the inconsistency, then you're really not defending liberty. You can't hurt other people, but yes, you have the right to do things that are very controversial. If not, then you'll have a government that tells us what we can eat and drink and whatever.

Source: 2011 GOP primary debate in South Carolina May 5, 2011

I know a lot of people have this idea that Ron Paul supporters are a bunch of tinfoil hat wearing fruitcakes,and yes there are some that even make me go WTF? But in reality most of us are clear headed, thinking, rational people. I've been a Dr. Paul supporter since I moved to Texas in 1999, I don't live any where near his district, I just happen to believe in what he stands for.

I know that I'm gonna get scrutinized by all of Ron Paul's supporters, but the guy is a right-wing nutcase. I mean, he is interesting, and brings up interesting arguments, but his ideas are a bit too radical. I can live with having our troops come home, but I wouldn't mind having some being stationed in areas where they are needed (like South Korea). But this guy is too anti-government. I mean, he wants to scrap 40 years of progressive achievements just because he thinks it harms our "civil liberties." Isn't it a civil liberty to be treated fairly? And if the government is supposed to protect those liberties, than what is so bad about the Civil Rights Act, or the ADA? And WE NEED entitlements, because they are the ones that have allowed us to decrease the level of poverty among seniors. And I would rather die that elect a man who wants to repeal regulations on raw milk, safe cars, medicine, or even having FEMA. I don't trust the free market to handle those types of things because they simply can't; they are focused on making a profit. I also don't trust the states with education, because once a budget crisis comes they have to cut spending in vital areas (due to parameters set to prevent raising taxes) like education. I like an activist federal government, and I don't care whether it violates the chief tenets of you right wing conservatives. I'll have Obama as my president any day. Ron Paul has interesting arguments, but his ideas are too far-fetched for me and for America. I mean, he wants to send us back into the early 1900s, where there was big business everywhere and hard-pressed workers. His ideas are meant for an ancient nation, not for a modern superpower with 310 million people and a $15 trillion economy.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

KICK OUT THE TEAPUBLICAN'TS 2012

And repealing Dodd-Frank??? That idea makes Ron Paul sound like a lunatic. The recession happened in part because of LAX REGULATION of the financial markets. Repealing Dodd Frank would just set us on the path to another Depression. And I don't care if going back to the gold standard will help against the business cycle; once a recession occurs, we need to take all reasonable steps to ease the pain and promote a recovery, and that INCLUDES regulations, although only in appropriate areas that caused the economic downturn. Sorry Ron Paul, but your talk of deregulation will endanger this nation's economy, and I won't let that happen.

Jason-3606250, people survived for thousands of years without guns too, should we take that from our troops too? If our troops have to be over there i suport making their life more comfortable, they dont make the decisions to go over there or come back.

No, he's not nuts as you suggest. You just don't agree with what he has to say. I am voting for Ron Paul. A lot of people in Iowa are voting for Ron Paul as well. Are you suggesting that we're all nuts?

Since you asked, HELL, yes- I am suggesting anyone who supports a kook is a kook! The man is a class-A nutburger and can't help but call attention to it all by himself.

But you are within your rights to support a nut.

Wow,what is this guy thinking? Might look and act all Andy Griffith, but after reading his opinions on some things,Iwould say Coo ,Coo, Coo,Coo.

Legalize Heroine!! YeH THATS THE TICKET.LOL

Ron Paul for geritol !!! lol

Ron Paul is the smartest and most sane off all the candidates running. He is the overwhelming favorite of our service members. If anyone is "nuts" it is the people who want yet another war or two (Iran/Syria) that we can't afford.

How about this: I'll refrain from calling Paul nuts. Instead, I'll just say that I do not believe his Libertarian views actually match even close to half of the voting public's. The Libertarian viewpoint would be a nice ideal if we all lived on little farms of personal self suficiency. Not many of us do - this isn't the 1700s. The viewpoints of Pauland the Libertarians in general unrealistically ideal. Frankly, I find most Libertarian's naive. Apparently they believe that because they have some integrity everyone else does. As an example, the idea that the free market is self policing is utterly naive. If everyone was equally bright, had equal access to information, and had the same resources then in theory the free market would police itself. People aren't all equally bright. People don't all have acess to the same information and resources.

Contrary to what most Libertarians seem to think, the Government actually does serve a purpose. Tell the parents of the baby that just died from fungal infection contracted from Enfamil that the free market will take care of it and when you are doing so think to yourself - how often would we have deaths if it was left up to the companies to police themselves? You think a lack of regulations is a good idea? Go take a survey of worker satisfaction in Asia. Naive Naive and more Naive. Ron Paul isn't nuts, he just doesn't represent anything but a naive fringe with unrealistic idealistic views of how society should function. That was SHOULD function - not how it actually works when you put real humans into the equation.

RON CRAZY PAUL Supporters this is for you in his own word no less:

"No federal regulations for car safety, medicines, even air traffic control: BRIAN WILLIAMS: "Does this include things like making cars safe, making medicine safe, air traffic control controlling the jets above our heads?"

PAUL: "I think in theory, if you understood the free market in a free society, you don't need government to do that. … On regulations, no, I don't believe in any of these federal regulations ... "

Every single person on planet earth know businesses will not and will never regulate themselves. EVER! ie: Wall Street Collapse

20 billion a year for air conditioning. Could we not just give 20,000 Taliban fighters one million dollars to be our friends?

The problem with Dr. Paul's theory that the free market will take care of everything if we get rid of the ADA, Social Security, Food/Medicine inspection, etc...is that the only reason these laws exist is that the free market failed. Doesn't he ever read history? Try reading 'The Jungle' by Upton Sinclair. If the free market would take care of having feces in our meat....they why was there feces in our meat when the free market was running things? The main thing that Libertarians always miss is that the free market only makes the best decision when there is a) full disclosure, b) all facts are know and c) there is an alternative. If you only choice is to buy feces infected food, guess what will happen. If all of the food is infected with feces, but we do not have anyone inspecting the food, so no one knows about it, guess what will happen. That is what most of these regulations are about, trying to give more information to consumers and leveling the playing field (so to speak), then letting the free market operate. I for one, do not want to go back to the early part of this century, where feces infected food and illness are just a daily part of life. Maybe someone should spike Dr. Paul's food with something, don't tell him, then ask him why he ate it.

He is the overwhelming favorite of our service members

Hyperbolic nonsense.

. . . why was there feces in our meat when the free market was running things?

Bats**t crazy Paul would tell you that it's your choice to eat the meat.

@ Give it a rest; So you are all for letting Iran have a nuclear weapon. The proliferation of nuclear weapons must stop now.Too many smaller countries have them now. India,NK,Pakistan,Israel,supposedly,o.k they have them.lol Point is no president or candidate, should give the green light to a country that sabre rattles against us weekly, to have nuclear weapons,this is insane, and I am not being funny.

The Iran statement alone would lose my vote.

Ron Paul for Geritol !! lol o.k now I am being funny.

Ron

The Republican lineup is a freak-show.

It's not businesses that regulate themselves in a free market. Consumers regulate businesses by buying more or less of their products or services. The FDA, for example, can prevent the introduction of drugs with dangerous side effects, and that may save lives. You should also ask yourself how many people have died because they did not have access to safe, life-saving medication that was held up for years, even a decade, waiting for FDA approval. Those deaths are uncounted and unseen. It's the unseen consequences of government regulations that are usually the most important and are usually the least understood.

Although a mystery, Ron Paul has been running for political office in the US since about 10 minutes after the country gained independence from England. I do believe He will continue to do so for the next 150 years mouthing the same backwardness.

How prostitution and raw milk could give Ron Paul problems

He must be lact-ho's intolerant . . .

Coral Taxi

@ Give it a rest; So you are all for letting Iran have a nuclear weapon. The proliferation of nuclear weapons must stop now.

I disagree. We need a country to counter the most aggressive country in the Middle East. The country that attacks it's neighbors far more than any other.

Three guesses who that would be?

It is not Iran.

Ron Paul is not nuts....I am no fan, but have a very good friend who is staunchly supportive of him, and knows of all his baggage. He also doesn't have any delusions he can win anything. Paul and his supporters are basically just idealists. No different than Marxists in actuality, just with the constitution instead of communism.

I often have long talks with my friend over these things. Paul is in agreement with how the country started, and doesn't understand how we've changed. Maybe Paul is right in diagnosing many issues we have with this country, I'm in agreement with some of his social issues as I personally believe in personal choice and responsibility, but he is terribly at perscribing the remedy. I believe he read Atlas Shrugged as a young man and just can't get away from that ideology, no matter how many things have happened in this country to show how these principals don't work in the real world.....people often don't take personal responsibility, they choose the cheapest even if they know its not safe, they don't band together and boycott, since the only way to do that is with a voice in the media....which is likely being given advertising money by the company said boycott would be against. Those are realities of those principals in action, its why we have the FDA, CIA, Dept of Ed, Fed Reserve, FEMA and many other institutions. The actuality of not having them was bad enough to spend the money, time and resources to create them.

I find Libertarians to be no different than Marxists in this regard, they both subscribe to a utopian ideal that can't exist with the presence of the human free will to use, abuse, lie, cheat, steal and be corrupt in the name of power or wealth. Both the strong need to be alowed to be strong, which communists ignore, and the weak need to be protected, which Paul ignores, forging that balance is the proper way to govern a society, neither can be done at the expense of the other.....and it can and has been done in this country for the better part of the 20th century.

If businesses were simply held accountable to contract laws and property rights things would work much better than they do today.

How anyone could look at John Corzine at MF Global and say the mountain of regulations prevented a problem is beyond belief. However if the CEOs of Countrywide, Merrill, Goldman etc were put in prison for their part in the fraud of the last 20 years the MF Global problem would not have happened.

Government regulations on business is a falacy, if you pay off the officials (SEC, Congress) you can get away with almost anything.

And whose business is it that I drink whole milk?

I can't believe no one has mentioned that Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate, republican or democrat, who has pledged to bring ALL our troops home on his first day in office (though it will take a few months for "the ships to get there" as he put it). All of the other candidates support endless wars.

Look up the FEC campaign donation disclosures from this year. For Q1-Q3 Ron Paul has DOUBLE the donations from the military than all of the other candidates COMBINED. Yes, add them all up and double that number and that's how much Ron Paul has. Ron Paul's top 3 donation blocks come from people in the US Airforce, US Army and US Navy, while every other candidate has a huge list of big Wall Street banks at the top of their list.

This articles actually paints Dr Paul as someone who wouldn't support the troops by cutting off their AC when the reality couldn't be further from the truth.

Lastly, watch this video called You Like Ron Paul, Except on Foreign Policy and decide for yourself:

I personally don't care if they have a nuke. We have thousands of them. So does Russia, China, India, Pakistan, England, France, etc. It's not our problem. If Israel doesn't like it then they can deal with it however they'd like.

WE ARE NOT THE WORLD POLICE

Jason-3606250 - Your explanation of Ron Paul's "air conditioner" comments doesn't cut it. You don't cut support to the troops in the hope that they will become uncomfortable enough to "come home". Do you suppose that Dr. Paul actually believes that soldiers set military missions? That Private Snuffy Smith decided the United States should fight a war in Iraq? Is that what "personal responsibility" is about in the libertarian world?

All of what Ron Paul says makes perfect sense if you agree to having the fox guard the hen house. Human nature being what it is, necessitates organizations like unions and governments. Are they corrupt? Wasteful? Self serving? Of course, these are human traits too. They do however, help protect the rights of the common man from blind capitalistic greed. It sure is a shame, this could be the Garden of Eden, if and only if, humans were not animals, but some higher form of intelligence. (to be fair, me included as an animal)

I agree with Ron Paul on the issue regarding drugs/prostitution, but his other views are just asinine.

Ron Paul's the man. And honestly? I'd trust an M.D. to run this country over a lawyer. At least he knows what he's talking about when it comes to health care.

"FEMA just conditioned people to build where they shouldn't be building," Paul said at the NBC-POLITICO debate. He continued: "Yeah, my position is, we should have never had it."

Sorry, but Paul is wrong. For many years, the general policy of FEMA was to fund community risk assessments in an effort to limit (or reverse) growth in disaster prone areas and to implement disaster loss-reduction strategies. FEMA's short lived "Project Impact" included floodplain management and hurricane and earthquake rated building codes. These pre-planning programs were very successful in reducing deaths and damage during the 1990's.

President Bush made FEMA part of the Department of Homeland Security in 2002 and was given a hand-picked director. It's budget and programs were cut, and it was redesigned to respond to terrorist attack rather than natural disasters. This is one of the reasons FEMA did not respond so well to Hurricane Katrina.

FEMA was a good program, but its budgets and programs became a focus of partisan political disputes in which Paul was a player.

Im amazed that people would actually vote for a pro war candidate in a time like this.

My generation is sick of it. We haven't fought a war for our freedom since 1941. If you were born after 1989 we have never lived in a time of peace. Remeber, take note, if anyone else is elected other than ron paul and we go to war, get ready to pick up a rifle because my young generation will refuse to fight another endless war for the political establishment, israel, or big business/oil.

Then what?

Ron paul 2012.

Not if you look at the point of bring the troops home, save the money. We do not have an exit stategy, I voted for Obama to get us out of this mess of 2 worthless wars, he didn't want to leave iraq but the wouldn't give our troops immunity if they stayed and his so called "change". I want government out of my life, tort reform - which will never happen with lawyers in Congress and the lobbyists. Which should get kicked out of our lives the most - no more lobbyists! Congress needs to get to work and President need to lead!

What I dislike about Ron Paul is that im right there with him on half the stuff he says.

and then the other half comes out of his mouth and im convinced he's crazy.

He lives in a liberatarian utopia, where most of what he THINKS should happen, isnt even remotely possible.

And I fully disagree, I dont believe the "american people" are smart enough to make educated decisions, and I doubt he's in support of fully funding education to ensure that we are all smart enough to make the right decisions.

Personal Responsibility is important no doubt. But no one has enough time in their day to research every product, service, food they wish to purchase/utilize to ensure the choice you made is the right one.

Ron Paul understands this, and is banking on it.

Ron Paul wants an america in which every cheat, snake and thief has a better chance to swindle you and you have very few means by which to stop it, prevent it, or deal with it when it happens.

There isn't 1 candidate that agrees with everything any of us believe. They may SAY they do so that they can be called a Dem, Pub, or Bagger but they don't. Instead of continuing to vote the same ol people into office and then wondering why we keep getting the same ol results, how about we put someone in there that actually tells the truth. I don't agree with everything Ron Paul says, but I do like the fact that he says what he truly intends to do. In addition, most of what he wants DOES make sense. But no, don't look at the whole picture people, let's just continue to vote for Red or Blue. South Central LA has done the same thing for years and that has worked out pretty well for them too.

Jessica - would you include our govt in those snakes, cheats and crooks? Hmmm. Seems to me, this environment is already set up for them to prosper.

RON PAUL 2012

PHINEPANCY - Do the Paul supporters even KNOW he has said these things? If so, how can they condone it?

So what is the difference of Ron Paul saying it and giving all of us the right to disagree and weigh the facts as to whether or not we vote for him - versus - the typical politician that plans on doing exactly the same thing but won't say it aloud because then we know the truth?

The only difference is that RON PAUL 2012 is honest with the people, because he truly cares about the people.

Xavier W

I can't believe no one has mentioned that Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate, republican or democrat, who has pledged to bring ALL our troops home on his first day in office

Two thumbs up Xavier W. I wish we had other candidates that understand WHAT WE WANT -- out of foreign wars.

However, Dr Paul is just nuts, crazy and dangerous in other areas. So, while I agree with his anti-war positions, I think he is a idealist. And, idealists make horrible national leaders.

Keen,

the problem is that companies do not take personal responsibility, it costs too much overhead to check each product in a lot that comes off the lines. Without the FDA we would have unvetted medicine like those late night weight loss drugs flooding our pharmacies killing people left and right.

Regulation is all about prevention of things like this from happening. If even one life can be saved through a regulation stopping a company from selling a dangerous product then it is worth it. Lawsuits to remove the drugs only after they have been found to be dangerous is irresponsible.

As they say, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

How are passengers/pilots on an airplane supposed to take responsibility for landing that plane safely without ATC? You cannot exactly look out of the cockpit and eyeball the distance you have till you ram into that other aircraft that is taking off on the same run way you are landing on because ATC is not there to direct you where to go.

And we have all seen recently that nearly all businesses will cut any corner they can to save a buck of expenses, even critical safety measures to stop a catastrophic failure from happening.

Ron Paul supporters have no critical thinking skills.

Nukes for Iran, Heroine if you like, raw milk,even.

My name is Geritol.

And I approved this message.lol

@ you can't do it; You are for proliferation of nuclear weapons, and you are a Geritol supporter?

I disagree. We need a country to counter the most aggressive country in the Middle East. The country that attacks it's neighbors far more than any other.

So let Iran have nukes so they are a counter balance to Israel? WOW. Also you better check your facts on who the agressors of war were.I remember three countries trying to attack a small one, and getting beat back by pure hutzbah!!

You could not possibly be American, if you are please go over again what it entails to be one. Here educate yourself.

Israel was attacked on the same day it gained its
independence – May 14th. The armies of Egypt, Lebanon, Syria and Iraq attacked
Israel. With such a combined force attacking Israel, few would have given the
new country any chance of survival.

Hmm who did the attacking?

Paul is a typical hypocrite politician. He rails against federal government spending but had no problem with earmarking 2 million dollars for bike racks and decorative street lamps in his district! Most of what he says is just asinine. No FDA like back in the 1890s when any mope could manufacture any cr@p and call it medicine! No thanks Ron. Let auto manufacturers decide what's safe. Like the Corvair, Pinto, or Vega? No thanks Ron. Leave the states to decide rights of the people. That worked out well for black people didn't it? No thanks Ron. Raw milk. What kind of a doctor would say something that stupid? Look at the history of pasteurization. This idiot wants infant mortality to go up and Typhoid to spread. No thanks Ron. Social Security , Medicare, and Medicaid unconstitutional. Yea grandma and grandpa can always more in with the parents or grand kids. If they get sick or need meds the family can pay for it. No thanks Ron. Basically Ron, ONE IDIOT FROM TEXAS is enough and Bush beat you and Perry to it

For anyone saying "how bad it would be" with him as POTUS, what are you possibly comparing it to? You honestly think that to continue the path of our current course is a better option?

GW flopped

Congress is the worst ever and nothing is changing anytime soon

Unemployment

Housing

etc

etc

Yup I guess you are correct, we'd be much better off to continue down our Democrat Republican Tea Party path. Definitely parties that really care about the rest of us.

OK, I think Ron Paul has a few good ideas thrown in with a lot of totally insane ones. Let me ask some of his supporters a few questions:

How is getting rid of the a/c for the troops suppose to bring them home? They don't get to say "geez, we don't have any a/c and this is really uncomfortable. Let's go home!". Someone over here, sitting in a perfectly comfortable a/c'd office gets to make that decision.

How would deregulation work? He says that the free market would regulate, so this is my thinking. Some "drug company" (this could apply to other companies such as food manufacturers, etc) makes a totally unsafe and untested drug (food item, etc) and starts selling it in the free market. There are hundreds of millions of people in the US, and lets say 500,000 buy this drug, get very sick and/or die. Maybe this makes the news, but maybe it doesn't, as drugs are unregulated, so maybe it is hard to determine what these people took that made them so sick. Maybe it is hard to make the connection that all 500,000 died of the same thing. What if it took months before the cause was known, and even when the cause is known, the business couldn't be shut down, because there would be no agency responsible for insuring that businesses are producing a safe product and in a position to legally shut them down. People who haven't heard that this company and its drug are bad keep buying, getting sick and dying. So basically, we'd be relying on news and word of mouth to drive these types of companies out of business.

There are hundreds of thousands of unscrupulus people out there who will do anything to scam, defraud or kill to get their hands on just a few hundred dollars. The free market can not self regulate. There are far too many people in this country, and the world who could potentally be exposed to unsafe products produced by unregulated businesses.

We completely agree with Ron Paul because it is just plain crazy not too. 20 billion for air conditioning is just pointing up how the government is wasting your money on empire building. Do you think its sensible to spend a trillion dollars plus on the military and we can't manage to protect our own border? Ron Paul would bring our troops home where they belong thus you would have no need to waste 20 billion on air conditioning. When it comes to military personnel, more of them have made donations to Ron Paul then all the other candidates combined. Maybe you're out of touch with reality.

Prostitution is legal in Nevada along with Gambling. How many people visit Nevada every year? We haven't fallen off the Earth. If we had we wouldn't have so many people coming here. So if a states citizens want to legalize something how is that crazy? It's crazy to let states legalize drugs if their citizens decide too? Well Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington have all legalized marijuana. Ron Paul says he would not use the federal government to nullify a state vote by raiding for example medical marijuana dispensaries or threatening them with property seizures under federal laws. Something Obama promised but of course lied about. The war on drugs is crazy.

Fema, car safety give me a break. Why did they recall that beef after 5 or 6 people dropped dead from eating it? Why do they have these vehicle recalls sometimes 5 or 6 or 7 years after the cars are on the road if these agencies are working? Fact is states have compacts to help during disasters, states regulate their agriculture, states regulate their industry. For example when there is a forest fire in California under their compacts with other states you will often have fire departments from all over the country go to help them. This is working right now and it works without FEMA.

So the solution is not to have federal agencies that aren't doing what they claim or passing laws by proclamation. Instead, let the states keep the money and let them make their own regulatory regimes or assistance pacts more effective. That way you have state government, that you have much more control over responsible for things.

This is always the problem with Libertarians. In general concepts at a high level it sounds reasonable, but when it gets downs to the details and stands on specific issues and policies it runs into too many things that most people have some definite problems with. There are just too many people and business interests that would exploit the kind of true freedom Paul is talking about for their own benefit and greed without the protections to protect us that he wants to so quickly and absolutely do away with.

If Ron Paul thinking is correct ..why not allow any nation .. Iran or any other country have a nuke .. who would they use that weapon on .. Not us .. were to far away .. so let whoever is closer worry about it .. THe Ron Pail approach .. let some one else worry about it or protect themselves from faulty products etc etc as long as you get yours everything else is buyer beware

The GOP handlers must be running scared that Ron Paul may become a viable candidate after all - otherwise they would not be attacking him with so much venom.

Vote Ron Paul - the only honest man in the race. Annoy the globalists and warmongers!

Kayner - absolutely do not disagree, our govt is rife with cheats, snakes and liars...

PEOPLE are rotten, not institutions.

Those institutions are ran by people.

Eliminating govt (which is essentially what he wants to do) doesnt eliminate the cheats, snakes and liars...

You dont throw the baby out with the bathwater...you throw the cheats, snakes and liars out...and WE THE PEOPLE reclaim our govt, and run it properly...

but we're pretty lazy so I can understand why a libertarian view would appeal to the laziest amongst us "just destroy it, that'll fix the problem...er yep, damn right it would"

There is no easy fix, no simple answer...

and frankly, I think it's going to take the global economy to collapse before any ship, anywhere gets pointed in the right direction.

we are having too much fun being divided, to ever consider uniting for ANY reasons, until death or life is on the line.

Tell the parents of the baby that just died from fungal infection contracted from Enfamil that the free market will take care of it and when you are doing so think to yourself - how often would we have deaths if it was left up to the companies to police themselves? You think a lack of regulations is a good idea?

You miss the point. Food and drugs (including Enfamil) are very heavy regulated. Yet this child tragically died in spite of these regulations (btw, it's not yet even clear whether Enfamil had anything to do with this event). Paul's view (as well as lots of market libertarians, and I'm not one of them) is that the formula-maker has an interest in correcting the problem, assuming it was the cause of the injury in the first place. How many parents would continue to purchase that particular brand of infant formula unless the maker publicly took steps to correct whatever caused the injury? Not many.

Saying that a market will "police itself" is not the same as saying that corporations will police themselves. The market is comprised of corporations and consumers, and it is generally the consumers (as well as competitors) who are going to ensure that industry is, by and large, safe.

I agree with Paul to a point, but I think (as one or two have already pointed out in this forum) it is a bit naive. Today, corporate interest control virtually every aspect of our public lives, including information and access to it. The government is a poor check against these corporate interests (in part because the constituent parts of government are substantially beholden to corporate interests), but it is virtually all we have. For the Libertarian ideal to be viable, we would need a complete sea-change with respect to the way our economy operates (which, ironically, might itself be a violation of Libertarian principles).

I can understand addressing the AC cost for our soldiers,but on a few other things he said, his campaign manager should have gotten the tape out, because I believe he just lost about 20 to 30 % of his voters that have gotten wind of this.

Is gotten a word?lol

Ron Paul is right. We don't need the government to protect us. Look at the recent debit card fee fiasco with BOA and other banks. The GOVERNMENT changed regulations so the banks decided to charge consumers fees. The CONSUMER's said "Hell No!" And the banks backed down. It is We the People who have the power, not the government.

If you don't want Walmart to sell crap from China, don't buy there. If you want Toyota to make their cars safer, don't buy from them. Manufacturer's will make products that meet consumer demands. Smart consumers don't need the government to protect them.

Independent Jim "If Ron Paul thinking is correct ..why not allow any nation .. Iran or any other country have a nuke .. who would they use that weapon on .. Not us .. were to far away .. so let whoever is closer worry about it .. THe Ron Pail approach .. let some one else worry about it or protect themselves from faulty products etc etc as long as you get yours everything else is buyer beware"

regarding the Nuke situation - the reality is, these nations want NUKES as an equalizer.

You'll notice, we dont invade and occupy nations with nukes.

I wonder why that is?

Look at it this way...if China was like us, and invaded every nation it chose to, occupied them and forced those nations to have a govt how China saw fit...and the only thing that kept China from invading us, was having NUKES...

Wouldnt you want them too?

Fact is, we are the ONLY nation that has dropped a nuclear bomb on anyone, so if anyone has proven they shouldnt have them (or be trusted to have them)...it's US

Ron Paul is consistent in his perception of the Libertarian platform. No flip-flopping. As a registered Libertarian, I can agree with the principle that the least government is the best government, but that is not the same thing as no government. We still want the government to do the things that government does best. For example, I would suggest that we do not want private militias, as we see in some countries. We are better off with our military services being provided through the government.

When we get to regulations, I may disagree with him on how we let markets be more efficient. We need to consider providing a level playing field for maximum benefit to our society at the lowest cost.

Based on history, we do not see many industries doing a very good job of self-regulating. With no regulations, no company could afford to 'do the right thing' because they would lose sales to companies cutting every corner. I would suggest that is is better for the government to provide some regulation rather than waiting for consumers to die and letting the public try and figure out where they can go to get safe products ... in this case, the market is only effective if you place a value of zero on human life and suffering.

On drugs and prostitution, the facts are clear: the war on drugs has been a huge waste of money. If people want a product or service, they will find a way to get it. Making it illegal only provides a business model for organized crime; look at what happened with alcohol prohibition. Toss the laws, regulate and tax it, so people can make informed decisions on what they want to put in their bodies while keeping the money in our economy and not supporting drug cartels.

@Eagil: It won't be liberals who attack and bring down Ron Paul. He scares the hell out of Republicans. They'll do the job themselves.

He's definitely right about raw milk. If I want to drink it, no government agency should tell me I can't.

C'mon Phine, we are all waiting for you to aknowledge that RP's position on the middle east is to remove our troops, do the right thing and admit you mistated his position. Admit his ideas on the middle east are more in line with your way of thinking (it's ok you don't have to be ashamed that you agree with a libertarian, we do have some good ideas).

"As an example, the idea that the free market is self policing is utterly naive."

Actually, the free market system does work... provided that there aren't a ton of idiots to screw it up. Perfect example is all the people I see constantly complaining about the "big, greedy banks" like Bank of America (which I hate too, I might add). And yet, how many of these people probably also have a bank account with them?? If everybody were to pull their money out of them, they would fold like a house of cards. Free market in action. But no, we are a country of stupid, lazy, apathetic people who can't be bothered to take ten minutes out of their lives to get a cashier's check and open a new account at a small and local bank or credit union.

We have laws that criminalize prostitution and drugs, and yet we live in a nation full of drug abusers and prostitutes. The laws prohibiting prostitution are nothing more than an inane attempt to legislate morality. The truth is, any two consenting adults can (and will) do whatever their carnal desires may be, without fear persecution by authorities. However, if money were to trades hands, these acts of intimacy becomes a criminal violation.

As for our nation's drug policies, I think anybody who took the time to learn the history behind the War on Drugs (term coined by Nixon) would be appalled to learn that most of these policies were rooted in racism. As Nixon once said before he created the Drug Enforcement Agency, "You have to face the fact that the whole problem is really the blacks. The key is to devise a system that recognizes this all while not appearing to."

We have laws that regulate food safety, yet everyday, people become sick and sometimes die from eating contaminated food items. Often times we don't learn of a problem until long after people begin to get sick and die. It can take the government months to hunt down and track the source of these outbreaks. Sometimes they never learn the source. More often than not, these problems are corrected only after intervention by the media, and not by the government.

All of these laws do nothing but deprive the citizenry of liberty and their hard earned currency. All to support a bloated government bureaucracy that has NEVER once relinquished significant liberty back to the people it has taken it from.

You Ron Paul haters can take some comfort in knowing that even if he were to become president, he will still have to deal with the Supreme Court and the Congress. The latter is hell bent on protecting their iron grip on power and the luxuries such powers afford for themselves and their cronies.

Haters coming out of the wood work, mostly nanny state loving, war mongering paranoid, "I'm offended" losers. Ron Paul is "Winning" lol...Way to go Ron lets keep shoving liberty and peace down there throats!

Ron Paul 2012!!!

He would make for an awesome GOP candidate, the debates would be hilarious!

the Americans with Disabilities Act: "If they mistreat people who are handicapped, don’t go. Boycott them. … No, the ADA should never have been passed. … it’s an intrusion into private property rights."

This is one of the coldest statements I have ever heard from A presidential candidate. How he came back I do not know.

When the ADA was before Congress, some members predicted a flood of lawsuits
that would bankrupt or at least overburden business. One Congressional leader
characterized the ADA a "disaster" benefitting only "gold diggers" filing
frivolous lawsuits. Attempts continue to weaken the law through amendments.

Studies have shown, however, that businesses have adapted to the ADA much
more easily - and inexpensively - than the doomsayers predicted. Some have even
made money by making accommodations. Law Professor Peter Blanck of the
University of Iowa has studied business compliance with the ADA, including Sears
Roebuck and many other large businesses, and found that compliance was often as
easy as raising or lowering a desk, installing a ramp, or modifying a dress
code. Another survey found that three-quarters of all changes cost less than
$100.

Yeh Ron, lets go back to the 60s and 70s where the hanicapped were just warehoused, what an ignorant position to be against the ADA, in the above paragraph,it shows how wrong he ias about private property rights.

To all the people saying that even with regulations, people still get sick from tainted food. Yes, that is true, but there is currently a gov't agency that will investigate the cause and can fine/shut down those companies for unsafe practices. With no regulation, many, many more people would get sick / die from unsafe practices and there would be no agency to do anything about it, nor would there be any recourse. If there is no law or regulation that forces food manufactures to produce a safe product, you couldn't sue those companies if your loved one died from one of their tainted products, because that company will not have broken any laws. Those companies could continue to sell to the public as long as there were consumers out there who had not heard about the contamination. It would be each and every person's personal responsibility to research every food item they want to buy to insure that there had not been any safety issues with it in the past. You would be responsible to know what companies are selling lettuce, tomatoes, bell peppers, beef, chicken, etc, to your grocery store. You'd have to do your research before every grocery store trip.

It is true that things are not perfect now, and never will be. Humans make mistakes, or get greedy. Taking the regulations away just allow for unchecked mistakes and out of control greed.

"I think in theory, if you understood the free market in a free society, you don't need government to do that. … On regulations, no, I don't believe in any of these federal regulations ... [W]ho ends up doing the regulations on the drugs? They do as much harm as good. They don't take good care of us ... [D]o we need the federal government to tell us whether we buy a safe car?

We have had the lowest number of traffic fatalities since 1940, and he wants to stop regulation. Let me tell you Mr.Paul, if something is not broke do not try to fix it.

"They don't take good care of us .."

I would say my above statistic makes you very wrong sir..

@ Sally; Amen to that.

Ron Paul has about as much chance of winning the general election as my cat. His extremist views might fly with the very right wing but it isn't going to win over the independent and moderate vote. Republicans would be fools to nominate him, everyone has a right to their opinion but I doubt you will find many that agree with him.

"They committed all kinds of war crimes and tortured people and killed people, committed assassination. Right now, our CIA's running the predator program, bombing citizens and not all of them -- They claim they're bombing terrorists, but they're bombing a lot of innocent citizens in Pakistan. No, they shouldn't have this secrecy ... I don't want the secrecy of the CIA, I don't think they provide any services ... For them to be over there and torturing people, so that we're safer -- I think it's destroying the soul of America by permitting that."

Wow,these words could border on treason,our national secutrity trumps all,does he not know this. These are the words of sympathizers. The CIA is all about secrecy to protect the lives of those unsung heros that risk all to keep us out of harms way, he wants to expose these Heros,and put our national security at risk,I am not believeing the words that are coming out of his mouth, the are bordering on the line being a traitor.

I do not get upset often,but these words have upset me considerably.

I agree with about 50% of his ideas. I agree with about 25% of all other candidates ideas, in both parties. So looks like I will be voting for the lesser of all evils!

I gotta ask. Is Ron Paul f--king retarded?

@ Chris; I would say very misguided,each step a candidate makes at this point is usually choreagraphed,or well thought out,ie engage brain before mouth, in this case I do not know, I do know what he is saying is not the words of someone I want with their finger on the button, thats for sure, he might decide not to fire back, so he does not hurt any innocents,if we thought this way last century, we would be speaking German or Japanese right now.

20 billion on a.c. for warriors...geez what a bunch of nancies the politicians are...soldiers, thanks for serving,

Nice to "give thanks" that costs you nothing, but you sure seem to have a problem with anything to give comfort to the soldiers if it costs you anything at all. Oh, but you think they are masochists that love to suffer, apparently.

It's not businesses that regulate themselves in a free market. Consumers regulate businesses by buying more or less of their products or services.
The market is comprised of corporations and consumers, and it is generally the consumers (as well as competitors) who are going to ensure that industry is, by and large, safe.

That might work in a small society where everyone knows everyone else, but it does not and cannot work in a society of over 318 million people, it's too easy for crooks and scam artists to move, change their name, and keep their criminal enterprises going. More importantly, few consumers are able to take the time and effort to investigate all the products they buy, it is much more practical and economical to have the Government do the safety investigations for them. The Consumers are the ones that demanded Government regulations to protect their safety, that's how Consumers ensure their safety.

Paul is a typical hypocrite politician. He rails against federal government spending but had no problem with earmarking 2 million dollars for bike racks and decorative street lamps in his district!

Yep, any expenditures outside his district are terrible wasteful earmarks, but any expenditures in his district is "merely returning taxpayers money back to the taxpayers". Never mind that his district is one of those receiving much more Government fund money than it sends to the Government in taxes, it's the principle that counts. (the principle of all for us, none for them, apparently)

Coral Taxi

Well, If you're like most people you're pretty sick and tired of Iraq and Afghanistan. Ron Paul would certainly go to war if he needs to. The difference is that he would go to Congress and get a declaration of war. Then he would fight, win and move on. Ron Paul has been in the military and gets more donations from members of the military than any other candidate.

This interventionist foreign policy certainly hasn't made us any safer. Iran isn't a threat to us. What are they going to get a nuclear weapon and come and invade us? Iran's airforce is incapable and its navy is just a pitiful. What are they going to hit us with one bomb and get glassed over? They are not a threat to us.

I can say that based on free countries like Switzerland and Sweden who will protect their rights but don't go around the world causing trouble. The interventionist foreign policy we have had for the last 100 years causes trouble, covert operation here, bombing over here, blockade, Coup de tat. Your interventionist foreign policy created Al Qaeda. And not just ideology wise but it created them when it armed Osama Bin Laden and had special forces give him training in Afghanistan.

The interventionist foreign policy has been an abject failure. No one is threatening the Swiss or bombing Switzerland.

Question: Your solutions, on stopping drug trade, is, give up, give up to world drugs. I say zero tolerance, we use the military for aid, we stop it from getting into the country, we cut it off at the source. Why give up on that fight?

Ron Paul: What we give up on is a tyrannical approach to solving a social and medical problem, and We endorse the idea of voluntarism, self-responsibility, family, friends, and churches to solve problems, rather than saying that some monolithic government is going to make you take care of yourself and be a better person. It's a preposterous notion, it never worked, it never will. The government can't make you a better person, it can't make you follow good habits. Why don't they put you on a diet; you're a little overweight, and i think you need government help!

The Morton Downey Jr. ~ Show, July 4, 1988

After 12 years of Bush (8 of the original, 4 of his clone Obama), anyone who supports the Constitution is a breath of fresh air. Obama gave guns to the Cartels, and gave a boon of business to the Healthcare industry who lobbied him. He is the 1%.

This Ron Paul guy, he REALLY wants to end the war on drugs? He would bankrupt the drug cartels!

And I can't believe he thinks drug addiction should be treated like alcohol addiction.

Guys like this is the reason why we lost the war on alcohol during the 1920's.

He must be stopped.

@ devil;Mam,

This interventionist foreign policy certainly hasn't made us any safer. Iran isn't a threat to us

Your very mistaken, and to say we are not safer today, because of our efforts in the war against terrorism,is very ignorant,and shows a lack of appreciation for all those who have died for you, to keep the flames of terrorism tampered down.

To say Iran is not a threat,is also very ignorant.They have been on the path to nuclear arms for some time now. They sabre rattle against us weekly,and brag on their new missiles and weapons but they are no threat?lol Do you think we have them under constant surveillance,because they are not a threat? Think again.

I can say that based on free countries like Switzerland and Sweden who will protect their rights but don't go around the world causing trouble. The interventionist foreign policy we have had for the last 100 years.

Wrong again this "interventionalist policy" has kept the wars far away from our shores for the last century. See, wwI,and WWII,this policy has saved you trouble. You can not compare us to Sweden, or Switzerland,lol They coudnt protect themselves from anything.lol

You are seriously misguided if you think we started the trouble. See 9/11, they drew first bloood in this century we will draw the last. Do not say we are causing the trouble, because we poke back much harder than we were poked. Germany learned it, Japan learned it, now the terrorist will learn it.

@ devil;

The interventionist foreign policy has been an abject failure. No one is threatening the Swiss or bombing Switzerland.

Both Sweden and Switzerland have been victims of terrorist ,by bombings over the past 2 years, both deployed troops to help us with the war in Afghanistan. You truly need to read before you rant.

Switzerland,is becoming a haven for terrorist to plan their future attacks.

the country has been found to be a haven for some Islamic radicals advocating terrorism to retreat to and plan further operations.

Some advice for you, would be to check your facts, and know what you are talking about.

We take the fight to them, that is how we roll, be thankful for it, Devil.

@ Sally Lu:

With no regulation, many, many more people would get sick / die from unsafe practices and there would be no agency to do anything about it, nor would there be any recourse.

Not necessarily true. In this Enfamil situation, for instance, many retailers (including Wal Mart, who sells the bulk of the product, I venture to guess), pulled the product immediately, just as a precaution. This was a market driven decision (or a PR decision, if you want to look at it that way, but it's the same thing); they were not commanded to do so by some regulatory body. The market in many instances will protect itself, and, by extension, will protect consumers.

If there is no law or regulation that forces food manufactures to produce a safe product, you couldn't sue those companies if your loved one died from one of their tainted products, because that company will not have broken any laws.

Of course you could. You don't need a law or regulation to support a civil suit for personal injury or product liability (although a manufacturer's failing to abide by such a law or reg would make recovery of damages a bit easier). Indeed, very few such suits are predicated on the express violation of any law or regulation. It is the common law, not statutes and regulations, that impose a duty of care in the making of food and drugs.

I'm not a free-market libertarian, and I agree with your broader point that, given to complexities of modern society, it is a bit naive to expect that we can fully de-regulate our economy. But I agree with Dr. Paul on many points, and I do think many of our regulations, either purposefully or accidentally, work to benefit big corporations and harm small business.

If Ron Paul supports the idea of legalizing all drugs because of personal responsibility, pretty much all social services the government provides (food stamps, etc.) would have to be gonged shortly before / thereafter, because otherwise we'll just end up being a bunch of druggies waiting for the next government handout.

However, if they want to be a meth addict, they should starve in the streets and not look to others to carry them.

If there is no law or regulation that forces food manufactures to produce a safe product, you couldn't sue those companies if your loved one died from one of their tainted products, because that company will not have broken any laws.

Of course you could. You don't need a law or regulation to support a civil suit for personal injury or product liability (although a manufacturer's failing to abide by such a law or reg would make recovery of damages a bit easier). Indeed, very few such suits are predicated on the express violation of any law or regulation. It is the common law, not statutes and regulations, that impose a duty of care in the making of food and drugs.

The problem is the same Republicans that want to eliminate Government regulations also want to severely restrict or eliminate the right to sue - that's what their "tort reform" is all about. With no regulations and no right to sue, it would be "buyer beware" to the max.

@ CM:

First, the term tort reform means many different things. But, however you interpret it, it generally does not have any effect on a person's "right to sue." In its most common formulation, it merely impacts the amount of damages that may be recoverable in certain situations. The idea is to remove some of the shocking sums that have been awarded by juries, but not to prevent persons from seeking damages altogether.

Second, such tort reform would impact civil judgments rendered under the common law or a statute. In other words, having no food safety regulations, for instance, would not really impact a person's ability to sue if a food maker were negligent in the production of a food item. And neither would tort reform.

Ron Paul's views become infinitely more defensible when you remember that states will still be able to operate in any way they choose. If you're for industry regulations on products such as food and drugs, then you petition your state government to set up it's own agency(ies) to do that. This is exceptionally basic stuff.

Don't like drugs in your community? Outlaw them in your state; it's perfectly within your rights. Want environmental protections to preserve your regional wildlife? Create them in your state. Want to ensure that handicapped people have access to goods and services? Legislate these laws in your own state.

The assumption appears, to me, to be that if the federal government doesn't do it, then no government can do it, and it seems that many have forgotten that, legally, the United States is a collection of countries who have organized themselves under an overarching government that mediates disputes between the states while providing services that all states need. The reason the federal government runs the military is because all states require the same amount of protection. If florida were to be invaded by cuba, then florida wouldn't have to organize a local militia, appeal to it's neighbors for aid, the federal government provides constant military protection to florida because it has agreed to be bound by the contract that is the constitution; it gives up it's sovereign rights in exchange for subsidy (military protection, diplomatic services [between both states in the union and foreign states], common laws, common currency, and protections from other states [again, both in and out of the union], all of which are expenses that are funded by communal expenditure [the sovereign right of the state to levy and collect taxes] for a common good). If you think every state is just going to suddenly and miraculously change the way it operates and all of a sudden your state or county department of natural resources (or whatever the equivalent might be called, if you have one) is going to suddenly just dismantle itself and now we have absolutely no protections? Of course not.

Further, the information used to create the laws, and the laws themselves, will still be extant to the extent that one (state, county, city governments) can look at the laws and then incorporate them how they see fit. If you want the protections offered by the EPA, then you simply create a state based EPA, it really is that simple. If you think the FDA is doing a good job, you create a state based FDA. You people act like it's some huge mystery how these laws got put into effect, and that if we get rid of them they can never come back, they are forever banished to the x-zone where mutant plant men will consume their very memories from our minds. The point of limited FEDERAL government is to give power back to the states where the local populaces can better check the power of government. If you want gun regulations, enhance your state gun regulations, every state has gun regulations already, you're not having to import some grand new architecture of bureaucratic power, you amend what's already there.

In addition, checks against industry abuses would be handled by the courts. There's only over a hundred years of precedent and opinion instantly accessible on the internet. This isn't about destroying government and empowering faceless corporations, it's about creating a dynamic system which can quickly adapt to new changes by decentralizing the current hold on power and returning power to the people through local politics. This would greatly limit the ability of lobbyists to influence governmental decisions because the corporations would have to lobby each individual state or county government, thereby increasing the costs of lobbying in general (it's not like politicians are going to be any less greedy, only now, you're going to have to bribe a lot more politicians because you can no longer hide behind the stonewall of federal sovereignty [e.g. the right of the federal government to claim jurisdiction over x thing]) diluting the influence of money and corruption. Also, it's MUCH easier to run for state office than it is to run for federal office, as there are many more state positions than there are federal (in the context of legislative positions), meaning it will be easier for the common person to get into politics to effect change on their issues.

Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of free market capitalism by any means (or socialism [heavy regulations], or communism [state ownership of business], or fascism [business ownership of state]), but if I think something is being done in an inefficient manner I would actually have a legitimate chance of influencing state or county regulations, whereas I have almost no chance of influencing federal regulations. With a libertarian federal government, the government spends its time and money on doing the few things it needs to do (common defense, civil liberties, diplomacy, etc.) in the most efficient manner as it can (people are corrupt after all) and the rest is left up to the states where the citizens can much more rapidly effect change.

Consider, if you want to amend a state constitution, you only have to worry about how it affects YOUR state. If you want to amend the federal constitution, you have to worry about how it affects EVERY state, and, the state legislatures have to ratify it as well (not all, but most), meaning inefficient and slow reaction time. If, for example, Iowa wants to make it unconstitutional (in state law) to charge interest on loans (just a random example of something that isn't reserved for the federal government, therefor up to the states or the people to decide), then Iowa only has to worry about how it's going to affect Iowa's businesses and citizens, rather than try to convince everyone else it's a good idea too. Further, if Iowa wants to make that stupid amendment, it's only going to affect Iowa, which is another layer of protection from bad policy decisions. If California decides it wants to be a communist government, then the only people it affects are the people in California; likewise, if South Carolina decides it wants to be a Plutocracy, the only people it affects are the people in South Caroline. Further, since we have the right to travel, if you don't want to live in a communist or plutocratic society, you can simply move to a state that fits your political ideals better.

The whole point is to limit the power of the federal government and let the states make their own decisions because the idea is that state governments are more amenable to their constituents than federal officials, and that states that make bad policy decisions will be limited in the amount of harm they can cause, rather than making bad policy decisions at the federal level and screwing everyone over.

As to the idea that the terrorists hurt us first, that's patently absurd. The West has been meddling in the middle east for centuries (and the middle east likewise meddling with the west), and as the "pinnacle" of the western world (whether we actually are or not, doesn't matter, what matters is how we are perceived), we get to carry the burden of the negative image associated with western influence in the middle east. So we can either keep sending people over there to die in the desert because grand strategy says we have to secure resources and get bogged down in forever-wars with suicidal, nomadic tribes of religious zealots, or, we can leave them to their deserts where they'll stagnate like they have been for the past 50 years, or, maybe, their people will get so sick of their backwards theocratic rule that they'll overthrow their governments in favor of more progressive governments that do things like provide them with roads, and things like hospitals and schools that are larger than shacks, where they can make a profit off of their own resources rather than have them destroyed or stolen. Either way, the better choice seems to be that we leave them to their own devices where they can either realize how backwards they are or keep being ignorant backwards people fighting among themselves over who gets that holy patch of sand. It will save us TRILLIONS of dollars, and they're going to destroy themselves or make some progress.

Also, the argument that Iran or any other country seeking nuclear weapons has been "saber rattling" against us, is patently absurd. Do you throw rocks at dogs who bark at you when you walk down the street too? Oh NO! That chihuahua is growling, we'd better bash it's skull in with the biggest rock we can find before it nibbles at our ankles. You know who else saber rattles at us all the time? China. China has announced MANY times that it is prepared to take major nuclear strikes from the US or others and still retaliate in kind. So the idea that saber rattling is a good reason to get into a war with anyone is completely without merit. Apparently posturing is a phrase many are unaware of. The idea that a WWII grade military is going to do anything other than engage in a war of attrition with the US is fundamentally flawed. There are two choices when fighting a superior armed force; attrition, or guerilla tactics. In the war of attrition, you pull an Afghanistan (Afg vs Rus era) or Vietnam. In the guerilla war, you never bother trying to hold any territory and you basically harass they leave. Consider Iran has no possible way to invade US soil, the idea that their saber rattling means anything is completely lacking in objective reasoning. The only way they could wage a war with us is if we were over there, in their land, where they'd actually be able to harass us in any way. As it stands, the only thing they ARE able to do is run their mouths and harass their neighbors. *golf clap* Good job Iran!

The foreign policy advocated by Ron Paul is a logical and rational foreign policy. We have good relations with China and Russia , we're economically dependent on each other, and we need each other for political reasons. China needs the US to be protecting Taiwan and SK because then it has justification for increased military expenditures, and Russia needs us working with NATO so it has justification for militarization as well (because Russia hates NATO more than being warm). So while we run our mouths in the press at each other, we're doing just fine, which is why we won't go to war for AT LEAST another decade (probably more like two decades, but I'm a pessimist). The middle east is where Russia and China want us to be because it is a massive drain on our resources allowing them to close the technological and military modernization gap between our countries. Russia is still recovering from it's collapse, China is still decades behind on its infrastructure (though closing the gap quickly as it adopts new technologies), and we have to do what we can to keep our advantage, which means we need to get out of the part of the world where empires go to die (the middle east), and get back to improving infrastructure and to re-invest in research and development to ensure our modernization gap stays as large as it is because that is what keeps Russia and China from trying to push us back to our borders. By intentionally falling back to our borders we free up literally trillions of dollars for reinvestment while creating a situation for Russia and China where they will attempt to step in and fill our role, get into a squabble, and further weaken their own positions, allowing us to remain the worlds leading military power, while re-establishing our industrial and educational footing. Our only serious problem at the moment, from a military standpoint, is the drug cartels, which can easily be handled by the federal legalization and state regulation of drugs, giving them a legitimate market in which to sell their goods, giving the mexican government increased revenue (as they tax the exports) to improve their infrastructure, thereby decreasing illegal immigration and border crimes (such as kidnappings and murders).

But, y'know, that's just my opinion and I'm just some crazy Ron Paul supporter.