Anyone but Romney !

Yet another well thought out and original comment from the left! 2012 is going to be fun!

2012 won't be fun for 'our Dear Leader', but it is guaranteed to be good times for those who really want hope and change! ;)

Jim Silver, there is nothing original about commenting on what is not original ... seems to me that you have fallen onto your own pen.

Jim Silver, there is nothing original about commenting on what is not original ... seems to me that you have fallen onto your own pen.

eh? lol both ideology... and sias remind me of the old joke: How do you confuse a liberal? You don't, they were born that way!

And how do you confuse a conservative? Give them a fact!!

Bill T, when you kick @!$%#e you do so with the knowledge that some will get on your shoe ... or "sias" ... you neophyte-cons have such a way with spelling.

The cat has been out of the bag a long time for OLD Ron P and his racism ... coming from Texas ... back then it didn't mean that much ... almost like the "N Rock" and Perry!

But times have changed and Ron Paul has changed the facts of those matters ... about as much as Romney would on any issue!

Ron Paul ... the straight shooter ...RIGHT

Bill - no one has to try to confuse a conservative - they have no clue about anything. Never have! For a while I was perplexed that the best women the GOP could run were Michelle and Sarah but then I realized that women with brains don't belong to the Republican Party!

Here is my opinion as an old school liberal, I think that both Mr. Obama and Dr. Paul are honest, Mr. Obama a little less so than 4 years ago but still in the playing field. None of the other Republican candidates leading have Paul's or Obama's integrity. Goodness, look at Gingrich! A man of truly low moral values.

Dr. Paul is honest to a fault, has the courage of his convictions and might listen to reason if it were presented to him in the way he understands the world. Obama is a reasonable man who suffers under the delusion that government still works and does his best to make it work even with all the enemies he has - personal enemies who will sink the country rather than to allow Obama an uncontested ounce of success.

I don't know how good a warrior Paul would be but likely better than Bush (who set the bar pretty low) although perhaps not as good as Obama, who has done a pretty good job with the cluster f__— he was presented with.

I don't think Dr. Paul would run around like a bull in a china shop and much regulation would remain intact for the moment. I believe that Obama will be the great compromiser he has been, to the benefit of the country, but taxes will go up on wealthy people (as they should). I think they will go up under Paul as well but it is hard to figure where the changed burden is likely to fall. Entitlements would be cut by both but Paul will cut more than Obama.

But then I remember what Paul would like to do with capitalism - make it more like true capitalism not the good old boy party we have now and I am convinced he won't make it his full term. The NWO would have him killed by some "lone assassin" who won't survive to be questioned about his act, possibly an Iranian, thereby killing two birds with one stone.

Guess I better vote for Obama much as I would find the first years of Paul's term entertaining. The NWO isnt afraid of Obama (but owns Romney and Gingrich).

Joe Said:

Obama is a reasonable man who suffers under the delusion that government still works and does his best to make it work even with all the enemies he has - personal enemies who will sink the country rather than to allow Obama an uncontested ounce of success.

You are so on target with that statement. Even more remarkable is the awareness that some of those "enemies" are in his own party. Given all that, I applaud the President for still trying.

You said it Zach, in his own .............................party!

Hi Ho Silver

Yet another well thought out and original comment from the left! 2012 is going to be fun!

Or someone from the religious right.

As far as Ron Paul, I have no problem with the man. If he did or didn't have raciest views in the past is not a concern. His Libertarian views do bother me. Paul believes in Laissez Faire Economics (Un-regulated), this view works well on paper yet has Never worked in the real world. It relies on corporations to be honest and truthful and when was the last time that happened. If you liked what Wall Street did to the economy over the last few years, let Ron Paul in. Ron Paul would remove all rules and regulations and let them free to do as they wish.

Super Pacs will be the total undoing of this country. They have no restrictions as to who or were the money comes from. No accountability as to what they say or do. Any person, group or corporation can invest in a Super Pac. How do you feel knowing that foreign groups and corporations do contribute to Super Pacs and influence our elections? Halaburton, B P oil, Shell oil and other foreign corporations do just that. The Supreme Court made it legal when they ruled " Corporations Are People"and allowed them to spend any amount the want to. All this with out reviling who or how much they spend. Remember Super Pacs DO NOT back a candidate for the benefit of the people, they back them for the benefit of the corporation people be damned.

OK I think it is clear that you cannot make everyone happy based on any comments related to any political conversation and the comments in this post is proof of that, but we have to compromise for the good of the country and we the people. I would vote for Ron Paul not because I agree with him on many things but because he is consistent, honest, and the few things I do agree with him on I think out weigh the many things that I do not agree with. He is most concerned with liberty and domestic issues which I think trumps all of the other fairly important issues and nonsense people focus on. The federal government needs to focus on the core foundation of the USA and let states and local governments decide the rest. With a strong foundation everything else falls into place and I believe the constitution is proof of that. Ron Paul is the only contender in the Republican party I would vote for.

Wow Joe, That was a really well-thought out piece. I'm pretty much in agreement.

Except for this part:

But then I remember what Paul would like to do with capitalism - make it more like true capitalism not the good old boy party we have now and I am convinced he won't make it his full term. The NWO would have him killed by some "lone assassin" who won't survive to be questioned about his act, possibly an Iranian, thereby killing two birds with one stone.

I just don't think Paul can win. He's too old, and standing next to a younger - presidential looking Obama during a debate would be disastrous while he's old and kinda squirly looking.

taxes will go up on wealthy people (as they should).

Even if they do - they will be passed on to the middle class. Not to mention - if we go "all-in" on Obama's "Government Works" scheme it could be much more disastrous than Paul cutting a few more social programs.

I think 1.0 meant anyone but Obama.

At least that's the way it's shaping up.

The youth vote the left thinks he has sewed up? Appears they've opted out.

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/30/have-the-youth-given-up-on-obama/

Paul believes in Laissez Faire Economics (Un-regulated), this view works well on paper yet has Never worked in the real world. It relies on corporations to be honest and truthful and when was the last time that happened

Here is the way it could work, eliminate limited liability. Owners and former owners of a company (to the extent of responsibility) would be personally responsible for the harms caused by that entity up to the total extent of damages.

The management of corporations would change and become much more conservative and focused on both short and long term consequences their actions because the owners of common stock who made a profit (and a living) would risk having to stand in back of a company with personal assets. If the company did bad things the owners could lose everything.

Actually Doug a lot of us are not very happy with how Obama has been doing things.

But if having to choose between Paul, Perry, Gingrich, Bachmann, Romney, Santorum, or now Independent Trump most will vote for Obama.

The only candidate that might have a chance against Obama is Huntsman and he will never get the GOP nomination.

I did not vote for Obama last time. I intended to vote for McCain until I looked into Palin. Once I looked at her I decided not to vote for anyone.

Now if given the above choices I would vote, but it would be a vote for Obama. I would NEVER want one of those clowns to be President.

We never would have had a motrgage meltdown in the financial system if the boys in charge would have to back up the damage caused by their malfeasance instead of walking away with a fortune.

Ron Paul will not be president because the CIA will kill him if it looks like he will win. Last time someone talked about reducing their power, they found someone named Oswald for the guppy.

ONLY Ron Paul intends to cut our military spending for wars that ended long before half the country was even born. Since the CIA's real job is to create wars the military industrial complex must then provide the weapons for, Paul will upset their apple cart.

Half the crap I read about Ron Paul is distorted by the mainstream media. The media calls him isolationist, when he is really non interventionist. China does not have troops all over the world, buy they have commerce and export everywhere. Does the press have the guts to call China isolationist? Of course not as it is obvious that they are non isolated, but they do not intervene. Used to be America made products the world wanted, now all we make are wars and weapons.

EVERY one of the candidates except Paul intend to drive our debt up by 10 trillion over the next 10 years

Bill you certainly fit the "It's a conspiracy" mindset that Paul cultivates.

Most of us aren't so paranoid.

Why would a group whose rate of unemployment is 45% vote for a failure who has only exacerbated the problem? Especially after all the bs that's come from his hole? You might but I don't think you represent much.

My guess is you didn't bother to read the article because it has a negative slant of Obama. Imagine that, it came from CNN.

I am not an Obama fan - BUT I am smart enough to know the GOP has fought him every bit of the way.

I wonder if the unemployment figures would be so low if the GOP didn't have control of the house. Or if they had been willing to work with him.

I saw him try to compromise in every way for them. I saw no such attempt by the GOP. Even the health care plan was a GOP plan, that they turned around and criticized as Obamacare.

I wonder if unemployment would be so high if the tax breaks for the wealthy were eliminated like he wanted.

Those Bush tax breaks have obviously NOT CREATED ANY JOBS.

Why did the GOP fight Obama on every issue? Not for love of country. They did it for love of power. They did it so they could blame him for the failings. BOTH deserve blame, I might be wrong but I blame the GOP more than I do Obama.

It looks like you have been swayed with the non facts spewed by the left leaning media. Allow me to enlighten you.

Unemployment is not "low". For years the govt has used measures which mask unemployment. True unemployment is around 11%. Under-employment is around 18%.

The GOP house has pushed 15 bills through in an effort to help the economy. They await Harry Reid and the Democratically controlled Senate to act. Which he has refused to do.

Obama did not try to "compromise" until after the 2010 election. ACA is not a GOP plan although some facets upon which both parties agree on is in the law.

Many economists say that the economy may be better if govt got out of the way instead of trying to manipulate it.

The "Bush" tax cuts were renewed and signed into law by Obama. Time to find a new scape goat if you want to ride that pony. BTW....they were across the board cuts. And they worked.

They fight Obama because they believe his policies are bad for the country. Not everything as they have passed some proposals and he signed them into law. Why do the Democrats fight everything the republicans propose? Power and control.

You have a very small picture.

You can google or research all I have said.

Unemployment is not "low"

I agree that was an obvious mental error on my part.

So you are saying unemployment is NOT 45% like you posted earlier?

The Bush tax cuts were made when Bush was President, unemployment has gone up with the cuts. NO JOBS WERE CREATED.

Obama didn't want to continue the tax cuts he only tried to compromise to hopefully work with the GOP. They saw him as weak.

That is my main complaint about Obama, he has failed to grow a pair and fight the GOP since they have refused to work with him.

Obama has been trying to compromise from the very beginning. That is why he used the GOP health care plan for "Obamacare".

The 45% he refered to was directed towards a specific group not the country in general.

............................."KKK comes to old Paul's defense".......................................

"It looks like you have been swayed with the non facts spewed by the left leaning media. Allow me to enlighten you."

And you have been swayed by the non-facts spewed by the right leaning media. I won't try to "enlighten" you. But not one statement in your post is a fact. Not one. You have an equally small picture.

Can't wait till Paul wins the presidency and I can smoke on the airplane again. Also curious, since I'm Latino will I need to drink at the all white drinking fountain or the all balck drinking fountain. Or will we get our own drinking fountains. Go Ron Paul, because taking our country back to the 50's is the right direction.

Really Charlie?

Please, enlighten me simpleton. Which of my points are not factual?

You can't dispute them because you are an ignorant, uninformed asswipe who makes the assumption that you know something.

I would laugh at you but I won't waste my time.

DIT. Quit smoking. You're wasting your money.

I don't think the airlines would allow you to smoke on a plane even if it wasn't a regulation

I don't think the airlines would allow you to smoke on a plane even if it wasn't a regulation

They used to, before the regulations.

phinephancy-4252115I

I thought Dr. Paul didn't approve of super PAC's? Guess I am wrong

I thought Dr. Paul was a kook

phine,

I took a nap it was too early.

Happy New Year

It's actually a very touching video.

Until you get to the part at the end where the disembodied voice asks you to send in money and the fine print at the bottom of the screen says:

"Super PAC's have no contribution limits. Individuals, businesses and organizations may donate any amount".

Now that's guaranteed to warm even the coldest heart.....

Jim Silver

Anyone but Romney !

Yet another well thought out and original comment from the left! 2012 is going to be fun!

Look Urkel your thoughts are just as irrelevant as Steve Urkel's were to Laura on Family Matter

Go back to your hamster cage where you are needed!

Bev,

Don't blame you for the nap, GF. Did that one myself yesterday afternoon. Felt so good, may do it again today!

And you are correct, Dr. Paul is a kook.

Happy New Year

So it only takes 10million to scrub away the stains of racism for Ron Paul. Oh my, that is going to take a lot of money to scrub away the racists that hate Obama.

You are not wrong about that, but you are wrong to be so snarky in your misunderstanding of something so simple to understand. Ron Paul does not like the super pacs, but he understands that he has no authority to tell others what to do with their time and money. With all of the corporate candidates getting millions from the pacs (I.e. Obama, Romney, etc), it would be foolish to think that Paul's intelligent, passionate, and organized supporters would not play within the system as it is currently designed until their man can get into a position to change it.
Similarly, people often make the same mistake on Paul's use of earmarks. The system is designed to where the Appropriations committee allocates a decently large amount of money every year to be spent. Regardless of what congress does, the money will be spent. If the congress does not earmark funds for their states or districts, the president gets to spend it. So, money is taken from the taxpayers, allocated to be spent, and their is no way to save it. Therefore, it makes perfect sense to earmark funds to return the money to the taxpayers in the form of projects, rather than let the executive branch (president) have a field day with the money, like get involved in more unnecessary wars (Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc). So,yes, Paul earmarks funds and rightly so. But his goal is to get into a position where the money is not taken from the taxpayers in the first place.

Sorry, Paul, don't buy it. Words having meaning and the words used in those newsletters were pretty mean.

WOW, less than one page of "racist" material out of tens of thousands of pages... Nothing there worse than what the Presidents pastor spewed for 20 years.

Sticks and stones will break your bones but names will never hurt you.

Go back to your hamster cage where you are needed!

It seems Bev also graduated with carrot top from the School of illiteracy and snarking! Both with a minor in alchohol consumption!

miked and Jim, Happy New Year guys and much success in 2012!

Dear fellow American,

You may not have much time left. Beware the AK47 wielding IRS agent with the dead eyes of a mako shark, the muggers, robbers and rapists running free on the streets, the coming race war, the pending new totalitarian bills, the AIDS conspiracy, and every other crazy thing I can think of.

Send some money to Ron Paul. I hope he does not get mad at me for plagiarizing his prior fundraising appeals.

Heh, you don't usually non-sheep insist on calling him Dr. Paul.

Sorry, Paul is not a wacko, he is a man both ahead of and behind the times. The mix isn't exactly the one i would chose but I don't know who would aspire to be a man of these times - except maybe Gingrich.

Tosty, Paul is legitimate, he went to medical school not theology (although Dr. King had some pretty good points even though he got his doctorate in theoligy). Dr. Paul can be legitimately called Dr. the same as Palin can be called "former half-term Governer."

"I thought Dr. Paul didn't approve of super PAC's? Guess I am wrong."

Even if you do not believe in guns, you would use one in a gun fight.

I'm just pointing out that only Ron Paul sheep insist on calling him by his doctor title.

Ron paul didn't write them. Please post those words up here, i want to read the sting of bigoted remarks that really aren't in them anyway. Some things are just a figure of people imagination.

One says the "animals" are coming. We'll what would you call criminals that have no respect for human life? They are animals the problem is everyone else substituted animals with "DA BLACKS" guess what that's your own prejudices, not his. Even though he didn't write that to begin with.

He's been very consistent in condemning bigotry from his supporters. Saying they have a right to be bigots but that he doesn't support their views. He's right.

Ron Paul/Bruno 2012

And a Happy New Year to you too, Damage. Try to tamp down some of that goodwill towards all and happiness in the coming New Year, okay?

I agree with you that Ron Paul and Al Sharpton are equivalents. I condemn them both.

Damage, Although I agree with you that no one has any room to talk, could we tone the heat down a bit, your points would be received better and do less damage to the cause..

RDH extremely well said.

I had no idea Sharpton was running for president this year. I agree he is a loud mouth, he acts crazy for the same reason Paul did, to make money......

I'm not a Paul supporter. Just someone who is sick and tired of the hypocrisy of the left. They make me sick.

I despise Sharpton and most of what he stands for. He should have did time for his lies and deception in the Brawley case. He ruined a good man. I like the Chris Matthews show but the station goes off when Sharpton goes on. He has made a living off his own racism. I cant beleive any station would give him a show.

Damage - Duh! Al Sharpton isn't running for President! I don't know who he holds a place of importance with but clearly he's a thorn in your side. Again, he's not a candidate - try some logic here!

[Damage - Duh! Al Sharpton isn't running for President!]

You are correct, seeking...but DamagedGoods here equates ANYONE who is black with President Obama, who he rails against at every turn...

...as the study conformed, conservatism is a mental illness...

The blacks vote as a block; The Latinos vote as a block, The Jews vote as a block.

What would happen if the Whites voted as a block for one candidate?

Just because Al Sharpton is an idiot doesn't mean that all, or for that matter, a majority of liberals agree with him. If they did he would be running for office again and might well have been a real candidate. Like others he ran to sell a book or get his cocamamie message out without serious chances of really being elected. There will always and have always been big losers campaigning for office. In a democracy it takes all kinds of people to run things. Democracy thrives on dissent and difference of opinion. While I disagree, for example, with Dr. Ron Paul I wouldn't for one second disallow him to speak and make known just how ridiculous his ideas are, or Al Sharpton and his biggotry and idiocy either. Fortunately the American public makes few mistakes (2000 and 2004 were mistakes but what the heck) but when we do we recover.

Liberals have more sense than to run Sharpton for office.. We'd rather run Barry or Hillary. We are supposed to be evaluating the actual candidates-remember? I'd have no problem with Paul if he stayed in his seat at the House passing his one initiative out of 620-- because he'd be irrelevant.

Also, all the Paulies want forgiveness and forgetfulness for their guy's racism but where is the forgiveness for Sharpton? How many years ago was the Brawley case again??

Damage - what makes you think you speak for "liberals?" I don't know any who hold Al Sharpton in high esteem. Now, the far right still holds their darling Bush in high regard don't they? Even though he is responsible for the deaths of over 4500 good men and women who served in our military. Maybe you should just stop before you get further behind with your comments.

Damage

As long as Obama, Holder, Jackson-Lee, Jackson, Gutierrez continue to represent the Democratic Party all leftists throwing out the race card should STFU.

Doug Ponders - Many diverse people represent the Democratic party. It is an inclusive party - not like the no-one but whites GOP. Your point????

Don't know where you got your "facts". But, of course, in true left leaning fashion, they are false. Lots of diversity in the GOP. Your type ignore it because it doesn't fit into the modern day plantation masters rhetoric.

The point was all of those people have demonstrated just as much "racism" as Ron Paul. Look it up.

The moderates in the GOP are always talking about being more inclusive. They know they have a problem with diversity. Jeb Bush, a republican I believe, is constantly imploring the GOP to try harder to attract more hispanics to the party. He understands that in 15 years, if the GOP cant attract more Hispanic votes they are doomed. Two thirds of hispanic voters identify themselves as Dems and only 20 percent Reps. The Hispanic population is large and the fastest growing in the US.

Off the subject of Ron Paul, Al Sharpton only exists becaust their are morons in this country that think since we elected a black president all racism is dead and African Americans now have the same opportunities as whites. I wouldn't mind if Al Sharpton went away, and he probably would if racism would die in this country and we could come into the 21st century like every other developed nation in this world.

Exactly.

Actually Dr Paul has a lot less to apologise for than most politicians out there including our Esteemed president.

I know this will fall on deaf ears, but Dr Paul will be the next president of the United States.

The rest, we are just going to have to agree to disagree...

Do corporations do what is morally right and honest currently? Do they not sacrifice lives for profits already?

What happens with no FDA/EPA...you get China? Pet food that kills pets, Cadmium in children's jewelry, Tainted infant milk, etc. Looks like Obama will be president again.

Oh and Romney?.....Mitt said he wanted to cut funding for Sesame Street - there is no way he is going to win now. What's on commercial television?....Sponge Bob! I rest my case.

Egilman - you're being very naive - Paul will NOT be President. Not a chance.

Not to mention his opposition to the Establishment Clause and the Civil Rights Act.

Corporations will do what is best in their own economic self interest. If corporations hurt people and the people they hurt have access to the courts then it will be in the corporations very best interest to do what is right - esp if the liability of a corporation isn't limited by some fake theory that investors don't or shouldn't run the company and owners and former owners should be liable for loss only to the extent of their current investment. Think what that would mean for current management practices.

Not to mention that Paul thinks people without health insurance should not get care and should just be allowed to die. That is some compassion from a doctor!

"We have met the enemy and he is us!" Pogo by Walt Kelly

Dr. Paul wants transformative change in America, not just more tinkering with the house of cards we are creating.

Nurse, what is the figure for the percentage of Medicare and Medicaid and insurance money spent keeping a person alive in the last two weeks of torture before death that the medical establishment has imposed on us?

I don't know the percentage but it is a lot of money that one could argue could be better spent.

Why dont you or your family pay the cost of your health care for the last miserable days of your life and see when you decide to go. Would you leave your family with the bills? i thought not, so why leave America with them then unless you are a leach? Isn't it your country and your children's as well?

Yup, when the quality of my life gets bad enough i think i wil join Jesus, Lincoln and Steve Jobs in a timely fashion rather than to waste medical resources and pass the bill on to my children and yours. Why don't you think about that a bit and maybe you can make the right decision too.

@ Rdso40

Remember, it is not about picking who lives and who dies - because nobody gets out of here alive. I live my life like it is always a good day to die. Timing in death, as in comedy, is the most important thing.

Joe--End of life care is not the only issue here--and I was not speaking about that. I agree with you--people should be made comfortable, not tortured with a lot of technology--and the cost is huge. Initiatives are being worked on all over the country to change how the health care system deals with end of life care. However, there are others not in this category who are under-insured or have no insurance through no fault of their own. Apparently the whole crop of TPGOP candidates seem to feel that these people do not deserve treatment nor any consideration for care--the attitude at the "debates" was simply to "let them die" if they have no insurance. Paul did not raise any objections. He doesn't seem shy about letting everyone know where he stands on other issues, so the impression was that he agreed with it. Doctors are to "first do no harm." In my book, refusing to treat or allowing not to treat someone IS doing harm. It is nice to think that charities will pick up the tab for all the assistance needed, but it is not realistic, as there is so much need in our country. With much of the population sliding into poverty while the 1% continues to profit on human misery is disgusting!

As far as a "house of cards," a good rule of thumb is to look at who profits from the status quo--an enormous amount of profits are made by insurance companies--that and pharmacy/technology are what is driving the cost of medical care in this country! Unless we move to a one-payer system, nothing in the healthcare world will change.

"We have met the enemy and he is us!" Pogo by Walt Kelly

I suspect that Dr. Paul is as compassionate as the next man but doesn't feel that the waste in the medical profession brought about by insurance and social programs is beneficial to the country. I also suspect that he has treated many, many poora people out of his own pocket, and that was his choice. i think what he meant when he made the statement you are so focused on is; if there is no one to volunteer out of the goodness of his or her own heart to care for the uninsured the government shouldn't point a gun (the tax man) at you and force you to do it, but you still can out of the goodness of your heart if you want to.

if this were the case here in America, the cost of care would go down radically and most people could afford medical care, doctors however, wouldn't be necessarily rich just because they are doctors.

I am really not opposed to single payer or any plan which will realistically address the legitimate medical needs of the population in this country. i do urge you to recognise that if someone makes a choice to save money and go bare then it is not my duty to take food put of my child's mouth to cover the cost of care for that individual.

if medical care is unaffordable it is also the fault of physicians who feel like they deserve to make half a million dollars or more and social programs (including insurance) who spend money without regard for who is ultimately footing the bill.

If we could only get an honest man or woman or committee to run the single payer program, someone who would not be subject to political or social or financial inducement not to make rational decisions. The problem is I see congress as an example of 2what should be our best and brightest and find the members totally lacking in integrity, reason or common sense.

So much for caring and compassion--stop believing all the BS TP talking points! The real drivers of healthcare costs are NOT the docs--that is just a hot button issue--smoke and mirrors so you don't focus on the real problem--big insurance and big Pharm, as well as more technology that does not produce better heath outcomes! You know nothing about it...

Joe - you don't belong in the same sentence with Jesus, Lincoln OR Steve Jobs.

Then the doctors are not in charge? I beg your pardon but they indeed are. They stand at (with some minor exceptions) the top of the pyramid. Nobody in America can authorize medical care but those privileged monopolists . I can't get antibiotics which are legally for sale over the counter in Mexico without a doctor, I can't even check myself into a hospital without authorization by a doctor i don't believe. The people who control the system, who order the tests and who authorize the treatments are in control and they are doctors. The collusion between insurance companies, big pharma and doctors to maximize profit is what is wrong with the system. One way to cure the problem would be to make insurance illegal, you have to pay for care yourself out of your own pocket. Another would be to open up the pharmacies from Canada, India and China to Americans and get rid of the need to get a doctors permission for, say, albuterol, simple things like that. But you have me on a rant, I believe that the medical profession is much to blame for the extraordinary costs of medical care in this country and if there were true competition amongst doctors and the individual bore the cost of medical care rather than the collective, the costs of medical care would plummet.

The other alternative would be a managed care authority taking doctors out of the position of being able to authorize extravagant tests and treatments of marginal benefit and sometimes even harmful results. But then somebody would have to be in control and where is that honest man Diogenes?

But it is nice to belong in the same heaven although i will have to put up with you.

Have you ever been in the room with someone suffering from an illness that will kill them, and seen firsthand how much money is forked forward so they can be 'alive'? Sitting or laying in that hospital bed with a tube down their throat, oxygen tubes on their face, barely responsive, unable to talk, and unable to even write on a message board what their thoughts are? I have, and that's most of why I can personally say up front, if I should ever come down with an illness that will do such a thing, I won't even ask to wait around long enough to get to that point. If doctors won't just let me die, I'll find someone or someway else to get it done. It's not only a drain on money, it's a drain on emotional stability that lasts years, and I can't even imagine what it does to the person suffering. Far better to let it all end than prolong such pain when there is no hope of recovery. At least, that's how I personally think any sane person should see it.

Forsaken One - I agree with you. It's sad that we have ways to help pets we love end their suffering but no way to help humans - with no hope left - to the same end.

Joe,

Awww man!

Joe, you make a very strong case, but then you say this...

The other alternative would be a managed care authority taking doctors out of the position of being able to authorize extravagant tests and treatments of marginal benefit and sometimes even harmful results.

We already have such "Managed Care" authorities, they are called HMO's they are just about universally accused of most all the common abuses the system can bring.

HMO = Corporate management of your health for greater profits to the corporation. With the amounts of money involved you will never find a Diogenes with a strong enough will to stay honest.

We either need single payer (which is full government price controls), or eliminate medical insurance entirely and take it back to direct pay. (let the market set the price)

These are the only two options that will bleed corporate medical to a slow painful death. They are also the only two options that will result in prices for medical care coming down to reality, the second option faster than the first.

Actually - All of you, there are states who allow - end of death - same as our pets, Oregon and Washington are two that come to mind ---- Plus there are "Living Wills" which both my husband and I have

So I suggest - if you don't want the tubes and prolonged death - get yourself a "Living Will" and most of all appoint a guardian that will abide by your request

You guys are idiots....who do you think rights the laws? You think the people in running the FDA give a @!$%# about joe and jane who have cancer? No ! they care about having a job, being in power, and making money. Watch the documentary "burzynski" and tell me what you think of the great FDA and American Cancer Society. Dr Paul's policies would allow there to be fair competition with the little guys, the small businesses and researchers. CORPORATIONS WRITE THE LAWS!

The ADA makes handicap people second class citizens.

We have the ... to insult them by giving them their own special parking spots like they cannot fit in with society without our help.

The FDA has killed more people than you can possibly imagine. They approved loads of dangerous drugs and they have prevented so many great drugs from ever coming into existence.

Companies have every incentive to not produce dangerous deadly drugs that do not at least offer more benefits than risk. The trade off is to be made by the DOCTOR who should always be the one to know rather a drug is effective or dangerous and should be the one to inform you of the trials. False claims by drug manufactures would and should always be illegal but the FDA isn't needed to enforce that.

The FDA is only there to prevent competition and help the big drug companies to keep their competition out. Oh and also giving the government an overreaching power to prevent you from doing what you want with your body.

Don't be an @!$%#, you have a right to choose your own medical treatment, and it does humanity no good to limit people on this issue. Penicillin was a great, life saving discovery that saved countless lives. Free reign of science allowed for this, what we produce now is sham fund raising drives that pump more money into the same old treatments, and do very little to look at different ways to tackle a problem. Under the guise of aiding and helping the poor suffering masses, you are actually giving money to do the same exact horse@!$%# that has no good results. What a waste of money, but more importantly, what a waste of time. The human race has a terrible time planning for the future, even though we have the past to look at for guidance. Not a lot of people calling out the racist card have any inkling as to the economic disaster that could very well happen. You can not believe that America is infallible, we are a young country in the history of the world and we could very well blow it. Romans did not think the empire would ever end, but it was the same sad story, a government that debased it's currency, spread it's military too thin, and increased the complexity of the centralized government. It all made for a weak, shambling shell of a state, that was replaced by a series of feudal lords that had power at the local level. Economic collapse is a serious issue for our state which would cost many Americans not just their jobs, but also their lives, yet some do not take this seriously.

As for @!$%#ing legislation, I was born a human being and I do not have to be subjected to any bull@!$%# saying I can not choose for myself. Too much knee-jerk legislation is passed, when doing nothing might just be the best, and most prudent choice.

Don't be a pussy and take some responsibility for your own life.

Ron Paul, you are one racist son of a gun. There is nothing you can do to erase your racist past,

Course there is. He could kiss Obama's ass. When are you going to after Harry Reid or Joe Biden?

Obama, as a black candidate, could be successful thanks, in part, to his "light-skinned" appearance and speaking patterns "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one."

"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," Biden said

And lets not forget that Democrats will accept a KKK Grand Wizard as long as he votes the "right" way. (Robert Byrd).

Funny how racism is limited to one party...NOT

Normally I would not waste my time on one of your posts but since you have once again resorted to out-and-out lies, I feel it necessary to correct you. Robert Byrd was never the KKK Grand Wizard - that is the national head of the entire organization. He was not even the state head or close to it - he was an Exalted Cyclops, which is the idiot who presides over the Council of the Centaurs and writes quarterly reports to the Grand Giant. While I am not defending a former klansman, let's at least get our facts straight. But then, blantant lies are the halmark of a dumb fux news viewer and Limpballs listener - that is what you are, right Alan?

What are the job responsibilities of an Exalted Cyclops?

He presides over the Council of the Centaurs and writes quarterly reports to the Grand Giant. In the Klan hierarchy, each local chapter, or Klavern, is led by an Exalted Cyclops. This member is typically elected by his fellow Klansmen and serves a one-year term. According to the original 1867 Prescript of the Ku Klux Klan, the Exalted Cyclops reports to a Grand Giant, or provincial leader; a Grand Dragon, or state director; and the Grand Wizard, or national chair. Below the Cyclops on the org chart were the Grand Magi, the Grand Monk, the Grand Exchequer, the Grand Turk, and, finally, the rank-and-file members known as Ghouls or Knights. (Many of these titles have changed over time, and most of the sub-Cyclops ranks have been eliminated.) The Exalted Cyclops' responsibilities include presiding over Klavern meetings, initiating new members, and appointing Councils of Centaurs—that's Klan-speak for a jury—to try and punish wayward Ghouls.

Alan, you are right and properly owned.

I stand corrected and adjust my statement.

And lets not forget that Democrats will accept a KKK Exalted Cyclops as long as he votes the "right" way. (Robert Byrd).

Just curious, so there are no Grand Wizards in the current Democratic Party? Any in the Republicans that you know of?

And the TPGOP would accept a failed Speaker of the House, who paid his way out of a large number of ethics violations and was asked to resign, to be the candidate for the highest office in our country because in their books, he says what they want to hear? Hypocrisy...you're darn tootin' it is!

"We have met the enemy and he is us!" Pogo by Walt Kelly

David Ernest Duke (born July 1, 1950) is a former Grand Wizard of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan an American activist and writer, and former Republican Louisiana State Representative. He was also a former candidate in the Republican presidential primaries in 1992, and in the Democratic presidential primaries in 1988. Duke has unsuccessfully run for the Louisiana State Senate, U.S. Senate, U.S. House of Representatives, and Governor of Louisiana.

Joe D. Glenn - you beat me to it! Let's never forget the stupid David Duke! Did not know he ever ran as a Democrat!!!

What racist past? Please enlighten us. The guy the headed his newsletter at the time has already come out and said P didn't write the articles and isn't a racist. What more do you want?

Actually I was thinking about someone posted a derogatory statement against Robert Byrd last night - looked him up on and guess what his mother died leaving six children behind and had her husband promise to find them families - Robert Byrd was actually named Cayles and sent off to his Aunt and Uncle named Byrd they adopted him - always wondered why he was not accepted into Virginia's Byrd family who were the elite Virginians

Then, yes he was 20 and a KKK - who wasn't in West Virginia - but this man died at 98 and look what he did for West Virginia and the world

On March 19, 2003, when Bush ordered the invasion after receiving congressional approval, Byrd said “ Today I weep for my country. I have watched the events of recent months with a heavy, heavy heart. No more is the image of America one of strong, yet benevolent peacekeeper. The image of America has changed. Around the globe, our friends mistrust us, our word is disputed, our intentions are questioned. Instead of reasoning with those with whom we disagree, we demand obedience or threaten recrimination

He was a man who evolved with the times - setting his prejudices behind him and recognized a nation for all

And god bless him he voted against Clarence Thomas for Supreme Court Judge not because of Anita Hill but because this man brought up the phrase "High Tech Lynching" Robert Byrd lived through those lynchings and denounced them

And any of you right wing know nothings who bring up Robert Byrd again should be ashamed of yourselves - this man learned , listened and became one of our greatest Senators

He also endorsed our President Barrack Obama

”

On March 19, 2003, when Bush ordered
the invasion after receiving congressional approval, Byrd said,

“

Today I weep for my country. I
have watched the events of recent months with a heavy, heavy heart. No more
is the image of America one of strong, yet benevolent peacekeeper. The image
of America has changed. Around the globe, our friends mistrust us, our word
is disputed, our intentions are questioned. Instead of reasoning with those
with whom we disagree, we demand obedience or threaten recrimination.^[66]

”

“

Today I weep for my country. I
have watched the events of recent months with a heavy, heavy heart. No more
is the image of America one of strong, yet benevolent peacekeeper. The image
of America has changed. Around the globe, our friends mistrust us, our word
is disputed, our intentions are questioned. Instead of reasoning with those
with whom we disagree, we demand obedience or threaten recrimination.^[66]

”

“

Today I weep for my country. I
have watched the events of recent months with a heavy, heavy heart. No more
is the image of America one of strong, yet benevolent peacekeeper. The image
of America has changed. Around the globe, our friends mistrust us, our word
is disputed, our intentions are questioned. Instead of reasoning with those
with whom we disagree, we demand obedience or threaten recrimination.^[66]

”

Interesting differences between Republicans and Democrats when they supposedly sin - the Republicans never forgive or forget a Democrat's sin - hence Teddy Kennedy - JFK - Clinton but they forgive all the Republicans's sins

Ridcule does nothing to promote your cause...whatever it is.

He didn't even write the newsletters..........

"My Father believe's Why should the government force a restaurant owner serve or hire someone he doesn't want to, The Civil Rights Act has hurt this country more than it helped " ......Ron Paul Jr. Nov 2010 NPR.......naw not racist!

WOW the crazy statements are in full force today. Dr. Paul would never advocate the killing of anyone without a fair trial and even then he does not fully support the death penalty (he used to) but switched based on all the SCIENTIFIC DNA evidence showing many innocent lives were lost to it.

On the contrary Obama is the one advocating assassinations of American citizens without a trial. Funny how most of the negative things said of Dr. Paul can actually be applied to the status quot.

Ron Paul 2012, thought I would never vote Republican but I also thought Ron Paul wouldn't have made it this far in this politically corrupt society.

Derek

In his book "Freedom Under Siege: The U.S. Constitution after 200-Plus Years" Ron Paul wrote:

Employee rights are said to be valid when employers pressure employees into sexual activity. Why don't they quit once the so-called harassment starts?

Chapter 1 pg 25

http://mises.org/books/freedomsiege.pdf

You actually support this guy?

Page 30:

Victims of the disease AIDS argue, with no qualms of inconsistency about rights, for crash research programs (to be paid for by people who don't have AIDS), demanding a cure. And it's done in the name of rights. Victims demand health care as well and scream "discrimination" if insurance companies claim they have a right to refuse to issue a policy to someone already infected with the AIDS virus. The rights of the insurance company owners are not considered, while legislation is passed forcing insurance companies to provide the insurance demanded by the victims. The individual suffering from AIDS certainly a is victim -- frequently a victim of his own lifestyle -- but this same individual victimizes innocent citizens by forcing them to pay for his care.

How can anyone support this hateful person?

Me...if i want to donate to HIV/AIDs research than i can do it out of the goodness of my heart just like you can...but you sir can't force me to pay for someone infected with HIV.

I am sure the children that have AIDS, and those people who have contracted it through blood transfusions, will be pleased (sarcasm) that you and "Screw 'em all" Paul don't care about them.

You really think that kind of mentality will get him elected?

Or are you against Cancer research too?

Heart disease?

MS?

Are you against paying for ANY MEDICAL RESEARCH?

Good luck winning the Presidency with that kind of mentality.

I'm against being forcefully robbed to pay for anything. Let alone medical research.

Ted

I'm against being forcefully robbed to pay for anything. Let alone medical research.

So you don't think we should have any military, any Roads, any National Parks, any Dams, any Levee's, any Police, any Schools, any Space program, or any Salary for people such as your Mr. Paul.

Time to Grow up.

Yes it is time for you to grow up.

I said I shouldn't be forced to pay. for anything. The federal government makes enough income to supply us with a reasonable military without taxing any individual. States should pay their representatives. People in NY shouldn't have to pay a portion of RI's representatives salary, national parks need no funding at all to remain untouched and can be left to the stewardship of the states, we need no space program, HECK IN THE LAST FEW YEARS PRIVATE ENTERPRISE HAS MADE MUCH BIGGER CONTRIBUTIONS ANYWAY.. SCHOOLS are NOT funded with federal funds, only minor money comes from the Department of education and at that it comes with strings attached that usually mandate programs that cost more than the feds give the states anyway.

You would be wise to learn how these things are funded.

The federal government makes enough income to supply us with a reasonable military without taxing any individual.

Ya if we only had to worry about an invasion from Fiji.

Heck eliminate taxes for the Military and even Cuba could overrun us.

The US doesn't make enough money to pay for Veterans benefits, and that is only 4.1% of your tax dollar.

26.3% of your tax dollar goes to National Defense.

I suggest you take a hard look at where your money goes:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/taxes/tax-receipt

One thing is certain any candidate that attempts to eliminate these programs has about as much chance of winning the election as you do of walking to the moon naked.

Time to grow up

LOL..

We spend more on our military then I think the next 10 countries! I think we can spend as much as say russia and china combined and that would be more than enough to keep us safe. If we ever go to war with either of China, russia, or the EU or all of them at the same time, we're using nukes and with the use of nukes there is no need for much of a military at all.

We defend more countries than Russia or China combined.

We defend Israel. If we didn't then Iran would easily over run them and gain control if Israeli Nuclear missiles. When we were isolationists, like Paul wants we found ourselves in much more massive World Wars.

No matter how you spin it we need Tax money. Should our military be smaller - Yes. Just not Paul's way.

Drones are an excellent example of how military spending reduces loss of American lives.

When we invaded Iraq we used weapons we were able to control with cameras, greatly reducing the loss of Civilian lives.

That kind of Technology costs Money.

Precisely, watching him in the debate was really exciting because you never knew what he would exactly say but it always was backed by facts.

There is a lot of Obama and other GOP supporters with outrageous beliefs. It is a fallacy that all supporters share all the same beliefs as their candidates. What matters is Ron Paul does not advocate anything but equal treatment of all PEOPLE men, women, child, black, white, brown, blue, straight, gay, etc...

Ron Paul 2012

Derek

WRONG

Paul is a racist, homophobic that believes if someone is sexually harassed they should just quit their job.

I wrote this on the above post but it bears repeating Paul wrote:

Employee rights are said to be valid when employers pressure employees into sexual activity. Why don't they quit once the so-called harassment starts?

What about that is wrong? Are you saying that a person should actually stay in a job if they are being sexually abused or harassed?

let me help you out.

GTFO and sue them. You have like 90 days to contact the EEOC after the event. That's the law.

Ted

You have like 90 days to contact the EEOC after the event. That's the law.

Mr Paul wants to end that. He thinks it should be OK to sexually harass someone. If you don't like it leave.

What? If I supported free beer for everyone and voted for Obama should obama come out and say hey, I'm not going to do that?

That's not entirely true or rather its deceiving. you have a right to sue an employer for violating the terms of your contract, the EEOC makes it so you must get approved by them before you can do so. RP would eliminate that hurdle all together.

Ted I suggest you read up on what Paul says:

Paul Wrote it- This is his manifesto it is not one of his newsletters.

http://mises.org/books/freedomsiege.pdf

PAGE 25

Today the lack of understanding and respect for voluntary contracts has totally confused the issue that in a free society an individual can own and control property and run his or her business as he or she chooses. The idea that the social do-gooder can legislate a system which forces industry to pay men and women by comparable worth standards boggles the mind and further destroys our competitiveness in a world economy.
Employee rights are said to be valid when employers pressure employees into sexual activity. Why don't they quit once the so-called harassment starts? Obviously the morals of the harasser cannot be defended, but how can the harassee escape some responsibility for the problem? Seeking protection under civil rights legislation is hardly acceptable. If force was clearly used, that is another story, but pressure and submission is hardly an example of a violation of one's employment rights.
The concept of equal pay for equal work is not only an impossible task, it can only be accomplished with the total rejection of the idea of the voluntary contract. By what right does the government assume the power to tell an airline it must hire unattractive women if it does not want to? The idea that a businessman must hire anyone and is prevented from firing anyone for any reason he chooses and in the name of rights is a clear indication that the basic concept of a free society has been lost.

According to Paul business's should be able to pay a woman less than a man for = work. - Not Electable

According to Paul it is the Employers right to sexually harass an employee. - Not Electable

According to Paul if she doesn't put out it is the employers right to fire her. - Not Electable

Read the rest and you will see why RON PAUL has NO CHANCE OF BECOMING PRESIDENT.

JOrgon,

You are misconstruing the factsIMO.Ron Paul has never said that a woman should receive less pay than a man.Or a black over a white.What he has said is that they should be based on their performance.If a woman gets a job doing hard manual labor(Lets say hanging drywall or framing houses)should she make as much money as her male counter-part even though her production or quality of work isn't as good?How about a male doing the same job,yet unable physically to compete.Are you saying that incompetence and being unproductive should garner the same wages?And how is it the governments job to tell people who to hire anyway?Ron Pauls view is to let the market determine who gets success.Example.A person gets a job at a software company.And lets say in a totally free society.The company hires the person to design software.The company only hires white males between the ages of 21 and 29,with brown hair and green eyes only(after all it is a free society and you can run your business how you want without a federal hall monitor).The company has it's ups and downs,but profit margins are falling ever since the owner instituted the brown hair and green eyes policy.Try as they may the company wasn't seeing any success in their narrow minded efforts.Meanwhile a new company starts up designing software as well.But they are free lancing their projects to all those who are able and competent.Men,women,young,old,black,pink,even rainbow.Their objective in designing software,is to bring in all ideas available.From the start,new ideas were flowing throughout every department.Their profit margins skyrocket.

Now with all this in mind.Will the company that chooses physical "features"as a prerequisite stay in business and grow every quarter?Or will it be the company who chooses to hire based on competence?I believe it will be the latter.

You see in a free society.The person has a choice to take a job where they want for whatever pay they negotiate.In our society we have this equal opportunity lie.Meaning I as an employer am not allowed to fire someone at will.I have to follow protocol.If I have a deadline the must be reached by a certain date.And I have employees who need to take off a couple of days because of a religious holiday,family outing,birthday or whatever the case maybe.I can't just fire them.Even if the deadline means I will sink or swim.It would be discrimination of the employee.What about the employer?In a free society,if a employer did not like the cultural practices of an employee they could fire them or not hire them at all.That would be their right.But no in our society we are forced to appease the employee.Without regard for the employer.And if the employee doesn't like a companies practices they don't have to take the job.They should not subject themselves to any means of harassment.If a law was broken,there would be criminal charges or a civil lawsuit.A free society is about choice.Not force!

By reading some of your earlier post here,I get the feeling (correct me if I am wrong)that you think that we have to have a country controlled by federal bureaucracies,for the safety and well being of us all.And we need social referees to tell us when we aren't doing what is good or needed.How is it that we became a country like no other by none of those things.Our Declaration of Independence doesn't say "We the Government"!Because it is a document for the people by the people.How has the federal government helped in ANY way.Are our borders safe(google border killings)?Is our food safe?(Google tainted food)?Is our school system educating correctly?(google World eduction statistics).Is our monetary policy fiscally sound?(google Fractional reserve banking or Rothchilds)Are our streets free from drugs after a 70 year war on them?(google DrugwarFailure).Is our congress looking out for our best interests?(google insider trading congress).When disaster strikes does the federal government have a workable plan of action?(google FEMA?Katrina mismanagement ).The answer to every one of those questions is NO!!So what exactly does the federal government do that does protect us.Oh yea more departments and bureaucracies.They are great at creating jobs.Government jobs!

Live

Ron Paul has never said that a woman should receive less pay than a man.

You are right he doesn't say a woman should earn less than a man. What he says is it should be the employers right to pay a woman less than a man. Even for the same work.

He also doesn't say that women should be sexually harassed and even says such employers are bad people.

What he does say thou, is it is the employers right to fire a woman if she refuses to sleep with her employer.

He doesn't say that the better worker should get the better pay. He says the employer has the right to pay as he wishes quality of work doesn't matter. He says the employer should have the right to ask for sexual favors - if they don't like it then they should quit.

He is all for the rights of the Corporation not the rights of the Person.

I haven't said anything about competence and in his manifesto he doesn't make that a necessary point either.

The company has it's ups and downs,but profit margins are falling ever since the owner instituted the brown hair and green eyes policy.

Here is another picture for you. An employer doesn't mind making slightly less (still profitable) as long as he has several women he can force to sleep with him, because there is no other work in town. Ron Paul says that is OK.

You are operating on the assumption that a company run in the way I described will fail. A company failing is rarely that dependent on the individuals in the workforce. Certainly in your Software situation the employees make a huge difference. Most people that are employed push papers, deliver items, run registers, stock shelves, etc.

I have had to deal with a sexual harassment issue where my counter part sexually harassed a woman that he supervised. She chose to quit as Paul suggests rather than pursue it. At that time the economy was good. She got another job. Still it pissed the hell out of me. He retained his job because she wouldn't pursue it.

By reading some of your earlier post here,I get the feeling (correct me if I am wrong)that you think that we have to have a country controlled by federal bureaucracies,for the safety and well being of us all.And we need social referees to tell us when we aren't doing what is good or needed.

Nothing more than we already have. Some things do run to the extreme, but as we have become a more integrated society some government control is necessary.

Our Declaration of Independence doesn't say "We the Government"!Because it is a document for the people by the people.

You are right it also doesn't say "We the Corporation". When it was written Women weren't in the workforce, Blacks were slaves, and the Indians were out west somewhere.

The Declaration of Independence says:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

So, yes, I do believe it is necessary for the Government to step in when peoples right are being stepped on.

You were quoting from the Constitution.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

So once again, the Government is ordained to protect its citizens.

Our food is certainly safer, hard to imagine what would happen without inspections or the ability to research the sources of E. coli, salmonella, or other such outbreaks.

Lives have been saved because of these organizations.

Think about it.

So many people are following Paul like some kind of Cult, if he has his way this Nation dies. Or at least millions IN this Nation die.

You see problems in the system and decide we should end the system, instead fix the problems. Nothing is perfect but you work for perfection.

FEMA screwed up, without FEMA it is an even bigger problem.

As far as the drug war goes. Legalize Marijuana, focus on the white drugs. Don't scrap the whole thing. They tried that in Amsterdam now they are changing their tune.

All I know is Paul would be an even bigger mistake than even Perry, or Bachmann.

Iran - Considering that would be an act of war, as long as those tankers were american tankers he can declare war officially through congress on iran. Go in, win the war, and leave, just as we did in WW2. No more nation building.

Kentucky issue is a states rights issue, but considering we have legislation on the books preving these types of things, simply follow the law? I don't see how this is even an issue.

Iowa abortion issue is a states rights issue - Federal government has no jurisdiction to make Iowa go one way or the other.

Arizona issue is a states rights issue.

Alabama - wouldn't happen. clearly unconstitutional.. anyone can see that.

Half of the issues you brought up shouldn't even be discussed at a federal level regardless... your clearly one of those people that would like for the federal government to define and order your life around.

Good follow up Brendan. The majority really do need a little bit of help understanding true liberty.

Ron Paul 2012

Your an idiot and don't deserve an answer to your "questions".

Some questions for Paul Supporters (again) :

Iran starts blasting tankers in the Straits of Hormuz - What does President Paul do? If american tankers he goes to congress and asks either for a declairation of war or letter of marque.

Kentucky State legislature passes a law that allows restaurants to refuse to serve Minorities - What does President Paul do? That is illegal, the government cannot pass a law that allows any violation of natural rights and he would oppose any law forcing discrimination. What i think you want to ask though is if they repeal a law that forces a restaurant to serve minorities. He would do nothing. We have the freedom of association as such we also have the freeedom to NOT associate with those we do not like. If a restaurant doesn't want to serve a pedophile in some states that would be illegal (sexual orientation). I don't think you'd object to a restaurant that refuses to conduct business with a NON-CONVICTED but open pedophile, say chucky cheese.

Iowa makes abortion a criminal offense (including sentences/fines) - What does President Paul Do? Nothing. It is not under the power of the federal government to regulate. What is more important is what would you do? Would you protest to have such a law overturned? The important thing is to also note that if a state voted to make it legal he would also do nothing (as a president) He is against abortion but doesn't want the fed involved.

Arizona passes a law that can only be enforced using Racial Profiling - What does President Paul do? That would be illegal and he would not allow it. The current immigration law does not require racial profiling and using racial profiling to carry it out is illegal and a civil rights violation as such the federal government has an obsolete responsibility to intercede if one is singled out based on race.

Alabama passes a law that states Minorities are not allowed to vote - What does President Paul do? Instant violation. It is natural law that all men desire to have their voices heard and be regarded the same as any other persons voice ias far as any government entity is concerned. As such this is a violation of Ron Paul's constitutional stance. It is not a states rights issue (states don't have rights actually) it is an issue of constitutional violation and natural rights violation and as such he would whip some rear end..

Got a few more - but answering these questions might settle things a bit in my mind.

Of course i don't speak for Ron paul himself but if you read his books you know that this is basically the way he thinks, rather or not you agree with it is up to you.

It really requires an open mind to wrap your head around some of these concepts.

Freedom of association/non association is one of the most difficult.

I would venture to say that 99%+ of us would be offended if it was allowed that a restaurant could post a "no colored" sign again. However lets be practical for a moment and take in the absolute benefit that such a display would create! Yes i said benefit. At this point in time the vast vast vast majority of people would be in an uproar over such a display especially in a main stream area. Exactly how much business would the place loose!! I can tell you a lot, they'd be shut down in no time.

However, If you go into a place with that mindset now (though not outwardly advertised and i've seen them) you're leaving anyways even though I'm not the minority they don't like. They aren't good places and being black and walking into a place like that would make you turn around instantly anyway. See the employees might have to serve you but you'd be concerned they have spit in your food. The patrons have no obligation to not be prejudice towards you though. They can call you every thing in the book. Tell you to get out. The owner has no obligation to intervene for fear of their own bodily harm. Basically if you're in a place like that no law is keeping you from getting the crap beat out of you or worse. Isn't it better to know before you walk in. Also as far as i know there is no law saying an individual that isn't connected to the business cannot be a bigot and outwardly so.

These people are stupid ignorant jerks but they absolutely have the right to be so.

Freedom isn't free, it also isn't paved by the military though people don't quite grasp that because it's been rammed down our throats.

The price of freedom is that you have to deal with the neighbor that has a swastika on his house but you also have the right to put up a sign that says I live next to an idiot.

We have to be willing to pay the price if we want freedom for ourselves.

When we start making laws and exceptions to stifle things we find offensive its only a matter of time before we ourselves are the ones stifled because others find us offensive.

You have no natural right to not be offended. You have no right to be included into anything other than the government. The government must always be neutral and blind to an individuals uniqueness or commonness. we built a series of laws to fight prejudicial acts because we were offended and not willing to pay the price. Many times this was appropriate because governments made it a law to force prejudicial acts. These acts were always illegal. For example. A state made a law forcing trains to have at least two cars and that both of them were to be designated for the races. Train owners were ticked, one never complied to the law, because it cost them more to do such a thing. This is where the fed had a right to get involved. if the train company wants to do this on their own that wasn't a place for the feds. You have a right to not take that train line and hopefully find another or even open your own, that is if the government was under control and couldn't hinder your rights.

Lets equate this with the TSA. The TSA is a government entity (private but under its control). It forces us to undergo a search procedure that violates the fourth. Its not illegal for plane owners to require you to be stripped searched before boarding a flight. it's within there rights. It is however illegal for the government to force you to be search for any reason other than reasonable suspicion of a crime or a warrant which would be given under the same premise. Instead of having the right to act in their own best interest and infact be legal the government has jumped in and forced the public. This is a violation of natural, enumerated and property rights.

If the TSA was disbanded I'm pretty certain that airlines would still require these procedures to be followed and if that was the case (while i wouldn't be happy) I would find it to be legal. However, the new NRA airline that charged three times the amount for a ticket and allowed me to openly carry my firearm on flight would get my business and would be quite popular with many us citzens, if not it wouldn't exist. I bring all of this up to illustrate that the government(s) are too powerful in directing our actions, most often when our actions are not causing any real harm or violating anyone natural rights.

You do not have a natural right to be allowed in a restaurant. This is easy to see. No shoes no shirt no service. If you are too poor to own a shirt or shoes then if we had a natural right to enter a restaurant they couldn't possibly put restrictions on it. lets go a step further and say the rest has a requirement to wear a tie? Does your natural right override the right of the owner to require a tie? You do have the natural right to obtain your own food on your own property. Don't you agree? Do you think you should be able to say grow corn on your own land? Well, Try raising chickens for eggs in the city and see how that works out for you, even if you put them in a well ventalated, filtered air, humaine space with sound proof walls you'd be in violation of some silly city code. yet we would more focus on the offensive behavior of some idiots that don't want money from a customer at a restaurant . In this example the government has done a horrendous job at protect both persons private property rights. The person that owns the resturant is forced (by threat of physical force i might add) to serve someone they do not wish to associate with. People advocating sexual orientation as well as race rights to be extended into the private sector (while I think homosexuals deserve no less or greater treatment than anyone) are disregarding the law of unintended consequences. I would argue that person whom declares themselves to be a pedophile should be treated equally under the law, I don't think that chucky cheese should be forced to allow them into their place of business. No i'm not equating homosexuality with pedophilia (they have no correlation whatsoever). I am mearly pointing out that squashing the natural right to not associate with a group is not acceptable because we should be able to discriminate between who we want to be around or to avoid. Rather we are stupid in how we apply that right is not a concern of government unless we're doing so while being an actor/agent for the government.

Think about it.

I would also note that not all people that are pedophiles would actually harm a child, they just happen to be the flavor of persons that are currently acceptable to society to discriminate against and make a good analog for modern day acceptable discrimination.

phenomenal, Ted!

Well said Ted!Viva la Ron Paul!

Ted -- You know...what you are saying sounds great if this were Utopia. I do not belive it could work in this country in modern times. Since there were no Federal government regulations on business -- and there would obviously be no minimum wage requirement (as that would be against the rights of the business owner) you will find that businesses are not going to pay people a living wage. Our standard of living is going to plummet.

According to what you are saying, no one has the right to clean air or water. No one has the right to health care. No one has the right to even burial or cremation if they are desititute, homeless, and have the misfortune of dying in the street. Let's go even further. Let's say that homeless, destitute person sneaks into your backyard and freezes to death during the night. You wake up and there is a dead man in your back yard. Who is responsible for dealing with the carcass? Burial laws are up to each state. I believe nearly all of them (if not all) mandate that human remains, if being buried, must be embalmed and dealt with in very specific ways. Since it would go against my rights to be forced to financially contribute to this dead person's burial or cremation -- who IS responsible? Is the property owner the one responsible?

Some true some not true.

You have a right not to have the air polluted because that's a violation of your natrual rights

Health care, nope, burial nope.

The STATE would take care of the burial NOT the fed. Lets not forget that states have the ability to do these things but the FED doesn't

Jobs that don't offer a competitive wage even in this economy aren't being filled the concern over minimum wage are unfounded

Health care for the poor is necessary, and humane.

I can't help but wonder what Jesus would think about supplying health care to the poor and needy.

Luke 10:25-37

²⁵And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?

²⁶He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?

²⁷And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.

²⁸And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.

²⁹But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?

³⁰And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead.

³¹And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.

³²And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side.

³³But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him,

³⁴And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.

³⁵And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee.

³⁶Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?

³⁷And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.

How sad that so many professing Christ have forgotten what it means.

Thanks for the link, good article, I especially liked the comments section

Hi 1SGFitzsWife4ID

Good to see you again!

That is a great link and yes the comments are great like most websites I've been on, the comments usually run 10 or 12 to 1 for Dr Paul.

The latest Iowa PPP poll did my spirits a LOT of good recently, Looks good for the Doc.

Please, I wish that you and the Sarg. have a very Happy New Year!

Hiya Egilman!

Yes I too have been keeping a close eye on Iowa (so glad to be able to talk to the people I used to live by when we were stationed there) In the little tiny town I lived in (where everyone knows everyone) not counting the retirement home folks the town has right close to 300 people (told you it was tiny!) and on last count only 3 were not voting for Dr. Paul (my lovely neighbor is working hard to fix that though)

I keep seeing people say that Iowa is irrelevant and bash on their state, I find that ridiculous, I liked Iowa (other than the cold) and the people I was around were very kind AND intelligent. Oh and the corn in Iowa is to die for!

I hope you and Mrs. Egilman (if there is one) have a wonderful and safe New Years also! Hubs and I will be sitting on the couch we know better than to go out on the craziest night of the year here.

we know better than to go out on the craziest night of the year here.

I understand that, I was a Tacoma Cab driver for a few or two years, (one of the businesses I owned) New Years is one hell of a night, CRAZY!!!

Now that I'm retired, we stay home also (yes there is a Sgt in my house also, I wear the pants, she gives the orders ;-))

Midwest corn is to die for!! She does agree with that, she was raised in Ill.. Knows all about corn..

Thank you! And do enjoy your couch! (I know we will be)

Oh my god "a love fest" good luck you two ain't gonna happen!!

On the Kelly Clarkson Twitter Supporting Ron Paul thingy... (she was slammed by some of her liberal fans)

money.cnn.com/2011/12/30/news/kelly_clarkson_ron_paul/

As of 1:30 am this morning her latest record went from #41 on Amazon, to #1 OVERNIGHT!!!!

Does this open anyone's eyes to what you are dealing with campaigning against Dr Paul?

CNN is recommending to leading musicians that they just might want to announce their support for Libertarians in the upcoming elections!

I think the sleeping giant in politics (the silent majority) has awakened!!!

I wear the pants, she gives the orders ;-))

lol I always tell the hubby you don't outrank my authority!

I am not a supremacist nor am I a gay preacher, and I fully support Ron Paul for President. And there are many many more like myself. Please stop with the smear campaign. People please learn to do your own research and decide for yourself who is the best presidential candidate.

Ron Paul's own record "smears" Ron Paul

No conservative can run on their record --- They have none to run on

I am interested to see if and how Paul repudiates (not refudiates Sarah) that "kill the gays" preacher, it would seem that he would distance himself from that nut-bag preacher pretty fast and furiously.

The only reason they like him is because he understands and supports natural and enumerated rights.

You have the right to associate within the first amendment. We also have the natural right to not associate with those we do not like. I know there are groups of people you would not want to associate with. Lets say christian conservatives. You are a homosexual and you own a restaurant. A bunch of christian conservatives that espouse what you find to be bigoted views enters, shouldn't you be able to throw them out? Well you can't, religious discrimination and all. They have a right to not like homosexuals.. Freedom cuts both ways.

It is better to deal with the inconveniences of freedom then the chains of repression because while the chains may not weight on you today they can bolt you to the floor tomorrow.

when the westover baptist guys popped a tire in a small town every garage refused to serve them. I don't see anyone getting in an uproar because they were refused service because of their religion! Turn that into jews/gays/blacks.. Hum..

If RP wants change why the Sam Hell did he wait 35 years to say anything?

This is nothing but dishonorable right wing Tea Party politics being married to the John Birch Society with Ron Paul

Everything Americans hate about bad government

Hey Jim,

Keep your shirt on! Ron Paul has done alot since in office. My you should do more research before showing how ill-informed you are.

Here are some facts from Ron Pauls history for you to read,

As a member of Congress, he continues to refuse to sign up for the government pension that he would be entitled to in order to avoid receiving government money, saying it would be "hypocritical and immoral."[15]

He came to believe that what the Austrian School economists wrote was becoming true on August 15, 1971, when President Richard Nixon "closed the gold window" by implementing the U.S. dollar's complete departure from the gold standard.[16] That same day, the young physician decided to enter politics, saying later, "After that day, all money would be political money rather than money of real value. I was astounded."[17]

In 1980, when a majority of Republicans favored President Jimmy Carter's proposal to reinstate draft registration, Paul argued that their views were inconsistent, stating they were more interested in registering their children than they were their guns.[24] He also proposed legislation to decrease Congressional pay by the rate of inflation; he was a regular participant of the annual Congressional Baseball Game;[20] and he continued to deliver babies on Mondays and Saturdays during his entire 22nd district career.[17]

During his first term, Paul initiated a "think tank", the Foundation for Rational Economics and Education (FREE).[22] Also in 1976, the foundation began publication of the first monthly newsletter associated with Paul, Dr. Ron Paul's Freedom Report[27] (or Special Report). It also publishes radio advertisements, monographs, books, and (since 1997) a new series of the monthly newsletter, Ron Paul's Freedom Report, which promote the principles of limited government.

35 yEARS? Huh the man has been saying it since 1976!! Just because you didn't hear about it or listened isn't his fault.

You know, he drips decency when he talks. He is totally consistent. He says things even the left wants to hear...I think a lot of us want our troops home.

On the other hand, did you really read the quotes from his newsletter? They are bone chilling and not just euphemistically racist. They are David Duke stuff...quite literally. If they throw that at him in a campaign...he is dead meat.

Robert,,,,, Then give Dr. Ron Paul a job at an airport with TSA..... We don't want his fingers in the Vagina of our nation

Buffaloes Roam

They have been throwing that crap at him since '07 and it hasn't stopped him or cut into his support, you should hear what people have to say when they find out it's old news, (some people think it is current) They say "well the character assasins are at it again!" what do you expect in a political year....;-0)

If that is all they've got, MAJOR FAIL!

He has addressed this issue many times. he actually said that people have a good point that he should have known about it. What more can the man do? He didn't write it! He said clearly he didn't and he doesn't agree with those views. Moreover his constant stance denouncing bigotry is for all to see however what people cannot get pass is his defending ones right to be an idiot bigot. Rather you agree or not one certainty has the right to their own thoughts and while most of us clearly understand that judging a person based on anything but who they are is ignorant we certainly cannot legislate away ones thoughts and as such you have a natural right to be an idiot bigot.

Sorry Landon,,,, The name Santorum made me think of the word "Sanatorum"... Nothing personal, it just turns me off... If his name was Brightstar or something else, he whould have a better chance

And that's "Sanitarium," btw. And let me ask you....you think some guy named "NEWT" who was probably named by elite pagan parents who idolize a statue of an owl in the forest of northern California and make hedonistic sacrifices and satanic, ritualistic chants? "eye of NEWT---" Screw any of that. Plus Newt is a man whore. He left the speaker of the house job IN SHAME--left his wife who was suffering from ovarian cancer--then had another wife and left her for the whore he's with today who has an insatiable appetite for the most expensive jewelry money can buy! (I don't care how much she spends--especially on makeup! You could make 'that' pretty enough for me to even look once, let alone twice!)

VOTE FOR COMMON SENSE AND END "BUSINESS AS USUAL IN D.C.! VOTE FOR RON PAUL!

Pfft. I wouldn't let santorum get near the nomination. I like lots of his views but it's not the role of government to force morality on people. That's been the problem all along. Its why were in this place. Moral people that are religious and moral people that are not trying to force their brand of morality on everyone. How about this, government isn't for forcing morals, just protecting natural rights. You have no right to physically harm or economically harm another maliciously. The government doesn't have a right to tell homosexuals they can't do their thing because their thing harms no one.. The government has no right to threaten me with force unless I pay someone elses way no matter how bad off they are. Lets keep it simple no law without harm and don't spend more than you take in.

Actually with the way this nation is heading we would eventually look like Somalia if we don't get someone like Ron Paul into office to cut through the corruption and get back to free society (one where people are held accountable if they do violate someones rights).

Ron Paul 2012

I hope Paul NEVER gets close to the white house. He is a NUT that will destroy this nation.

Freedom is never impractical. It's what built this country, its what it is founded upon, it is what made us prosper, lack of it is why we have fallen.

Did this country look like somalia when it was first conceived by the signing of the constitution?

no.

then your post is automatically invalid. Unless you believe our constitution creates a country like somalia.

*RON PAUL 2012*

Look at Ron Paul's record ---- He hasn't done one GD thing in 35 years!

Paul will win on the (I) ticket.

Come on...how many times now, has Paul ran for Prez either as a Repub, or a Lib or as Ind? He reminds me of the Wizard of Oz...pull back the curtain and waa-la...nothings there. But WOW he sure likes to scare people!

Some have looked at his record! And you sir, are just lying out your back hole.

Ron Paul has no record to "cook"