so what, means nothing

KO-374305

Hey dummy, your ignorance explains your support of Paul. Romney was not a corporate Raider you idiot, he was a turnaround specialist, the coampnies Bain invested in did so at their request. Don;t let the facts get in the way of your blind stupidity!

You can't even follow the terms of posting on this forum and resort to childish, offensive name-calling. It seems apparent that you are incapable of making a wise choice at the ballot box in November.

The evidence shows Romney was in fact a corporate raider... funny how you think engaging in ad hominem attacks on other forum posters is going to somehow make your claims about Romney the "turnaround specialist" somehow true. Silly, and if you don't think so ask the thousands of factory workers that lost their pension when Romney looted them.

KO-374305 - Romney was indeed a corporate raider. The people whose jobs he disposed of or sent to China would definitely tell you that is exactly what he was. He made his money by costing thousands their jobs and incomes - all the time lining his pockets.

Ron Paul is not dropping out! He has plenty of delegates. Unfortunately many people do not understand the delegate process. Reagan won with the same strategy, yet the GOP calls it hijacking when Paul does it. Romney and Obama are backed by the same bankers. Obama ran on getting OUT of wars, not starting new ones. He and Romney both back big gov't programs. Wake up.

he was a turnaround specialist

Finally, a Romney supporter who understands his true flip-flop nature. I have to admit, turnaround specialist does have a sugar-coated ring to it.

Overlord- Their pensions were lost anyway- Bain doesn't come in until it's time to either restructure or liquidate. Failure is a cornerstone of the capitalist system, so it stands to reason that there would be an industry surrounding that process. Ask China what papering over failure with government money does to margins and the overall sustainability of the economy. Of all the things Romney has taken part in, Bain was one of the few productive ones that didn't involve taxpayer dollars.

Not saying he hasn't sold his soul to wallstreet, they all have... But participation in a company like Bain does not necessitate being a "corporate raider".

You gotta realize what qualifies as a "turnaround" for Romney. Preventing his corporate buddies from succumbing to the depression is his only goal.

This is good news for drug cartels, bankers, our military-industrial complex, pharmaceutical companies, mainstream media, corrections industry, religious nuts, and energy companies.

Bad news for everybody else

The problem is you'd have to take all his policies.

Ron Paul is not dropping out! He has plenty of delegates. Unfortunately many people do not understand the delegate process.

Pretty much this. If you understand the delegate process, you'll realize it's foolish for him to burn money in this time of the year, with the convention still to come. It's actually kind of smart, letting the Romney and Obama campaigns duke it out. All Paul has to do is wrap up the delegates and he'll win.

I may not agree with everything Paul has a stance on, but he's the most honest of the bunch, and that says a lot to me. I'm sick of these jackasses in the two main parties constantly choosing Wall Street over Main Street, and every time they make it out that they're for the common man, there's always some corporate ties so they can get their way as well.

I would love to see the positions of the people calling Paul a nut, because I think that borrowing money to fund our wars is insane. I think that letting the Federal Reserve do whatever they want, without governing or consent, is insane. I think that making our children become debt slaves is insane. I'm sorry, but it's becoming ever more clear to me that we can't keep our current course and expect good returns.

Ranman, Ron Paul fan or not, I could quote your #2.12 all day.

He never had a chance to begin with his crazy ideas. Stick with being a doctor.

YES !!.....I knew it was coming, Paul is beginning to line himself up to run as an independent now that he has gotten all the exposure he could from the GOP debates, caucuses and primaries. When Ron Paul said he would not run for reelection to Congress I just knew he was going all in.

Think about it folks, a coalition government in America, an official refferee that will force the children to get along and play together or face the consequences of a big daddy with a big paddle.

With Paul as president, democrats and republicans in Congress will have to work together in order to override Paul's vetoes, or cuts to programs each hold dear, for the first time in years democrats and republicans will have to surrender the hard line and compromise......In these times of a dysfunctional government Ron Paul is the perfect bitter pill...........

Support and vote for Ron Paul for progress and meaningful change.........made my day!!

I find it funny that now all the media outlets will make this news of Ron Paul not campaigning seem as though he quit out of this race. This focus on Obama and Romney is usless and the people who follow with their minds only what the majority of media want them to see are ridiculous and need to actually do something for this country, and that is researching "ALL" the candidates running, not buying into all the media persuasion, and most importantly to get the hell off their lazy boy chairs and vote for who they believe in with all their heart.

Don't just pick between 2 unidentifiable, immature, unknowledgable candidates who will ruin this country. It is every Americans obligation to VOTE, it is YOUR obligation to get out and vote for your country. Show your support and become more involved.

I'm sick of hearing this crap about, no matter the odds the election is rigged and Ron Paul can't win. What the hell, you've already decided the loss and you will bend over and give in that easy? Where
the hell is your fight wussies? It's your obligation to push your leader into the white house, get every one you know to support them and keep pushing until you throw every last damn one of those crooked bastards out of office.

Our military who are dying every day fighting these unjust wars, gave Ron Paul the most donations then any other candidate and Obama combined. Are you going to keep voteing for these scum who are killing our soldiers? Wake the hell up.. If you support those deaths of our soldiers to all those American families who have lost, you will continue to vote for Obama or Romney or any of those other cowards who don't have the balls to make the right call.

If you support our soldiers comming back home to their families, if you support ending unjust wars, if you support fixing this country, if you support ending the corrupt greedy bastards who steal all our money and use it as their paychecks, if you support the spirit and original purpose in which our constituion was written and for true justice of our country and for the world, then you will support Ron Paul. If you are not convinced I urge you to please look up debates, even on youtube of each candidate and listen to all of them, I can trully see the difference in change in Ron Pauls character, actions and words, he is not a coward, and is a reasonable and logical thinker who actually studied and earned a position as a doctor. His words have value and meaning, while his rivals have on just masks of who they are, they don't have passion or courage in what they say. Can you see it ?

Ron Paul 2012!

Don't let the msm spin this. Dr. Paul is focusing on the delegate strategy and laying out his resources to support this instead of campaigning for the popular vote which will only strain his and his supporter's resources. Kudos to Dr. Paul for shifting the campaign resources where it matters, the hunt for delegates. Let's focus on these specially in California. Go soldiers of Liberty, fight for your freedom and for the future.

Drudge and the MSM, Romney's shills, has already spun this. Let's send out a barrage of emails to correct this misreporting.

Dr. Paul is in it to win. Take heart and focus on winning the delegates and winning our future.

Mikevotes,........No, Ron Paul is certainly not a coward, he left his medical practice, wife and three kids at home and volunteered to serve his country....If there is a true patriot who anguishes about sending Americans into battle, it is Dr. Paul.........That is why the polls show Paul is the overwhelming favorite amongst those in our military, and I trust their judgement

Funny

Willard Romney supporters collapsed my comment.

A shape of things to come? At least they can't collapse the 1st Amendment

And thats my opinion

MSNBC you are full of crap. Ron Paul's campaigns in California were not sporadic at best. Thousands upon thousands of people showed up to his rallies. Here is a clip that shows the rallies in Cal.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxZyGewLxck&feature=share

Ron Paul is the wrong pal for you.

Now Ron Paul can honestly say it's not his fault, while We The People conduct our business.

Which does NOT include RObamaney for President.

We are not Ron Pauls.

Ron Paul is ours.

Revolution!

Magnum, Overlord, Seeking, Red Dev PS, Spartan:

Corporate Raiders, unlike Venture Capitalists, take over reasonably healthy companies with hostile buy outs. Venture Capital Companies are invited in by company management. Corporate Raiders never restructure companies. They instead break them up and sell off the assets. Venture Capital Companies restrucrure and attempt to make them profitable before selling them intact.

Bain Capitals record of success in this endever is good, 22% of the companies they became involved with did, unfortunately fail. That means that 78% were successfully restructured and allowed to survive intact and in most cases even expand! It helps to understand that 95%+ of these companies would have failed without the help of a company like Bain Capital!

You Ron Paul supporters are the most delusional people on here. I agree with Paul on foreign policies and auditing the FED for the most part, but his economic policies would be a disaster to this great country. Paul proposes 1 TRILLION in spending cuts his first year in office, which would take an already anemic economic recovery into a full on depression.

Paul might be a good honest guy, but he doesn't know squat about economics. Look no further than who Paul considers as a great thinker of her time, Ayn Rand. Rand is a lady from communist Russia who advocates for greed in every aspect of life. IMO, greed is not something this country is in short supply of.

If you crazies think 1 trillion in cuts in 1 year would be a good thing, than I suggest taking an economic class and come back to reality. Look at what is going on in Europe. Those deep spending cuts they've put in place for the last 2 years has made things worse...not better. What makes you think these kinds of austerity measures would work here in the US?

Hey ... No one said it would not be painful... as a matter of fact it will be very painful to close the checkbook and cut up the credit cards. But to simply take out another loan, or apply for another credit card to spend on at this point is just delaying the inevitable....a sudden painful death of this country and the overnight uncontrolled collapse of the economy. Would you rather know now "Hey start preparing for tight days and get right while you can, cause the crunch to correct this crap is coming" It will be very painful... but it must be done to get back to real sound currency and money you can count on because its backed up by something other than a federal printing press. That my friend is not economics... its common sense! In order to get out of debt you HAVE TO STOP SPENDING! There simply is no other way!

justanotherveteran, the US government is not your household budget and cannot be dealt with in the same way. If we were to do the kind of austerity cutbacks that are happening in the EU or like what Ron would like to do, it would crash our economy much worse than what we're dealing with now.

It's not as simple as stop spending. Ron Paul, doesn't have an understanding of how the economy works. He also has a very twisted idea of the Constitution as well, but that's another story.

RealisticRyan

Anyone who believes that cutting a trillion dollars out of budget would cause a depression also believes that government creates jobs. Perhaps you could maybe get this through your thick skulls. Government workers make their money off the backs of the taxpayers. Those same taxpayers create GDP. Government workers suckle off of it, and create none of it.

Yes we need government, but get your heads on straight.

When the Government hires people to do useful work, that is indeed "creating jobs". Just like any other business hiring people to do useful work. In providing useful services, the Government also contributes to the GDP - it's impossible to have a thriving economy without the services Government provides.

Taxes are how you pay for the Government services you receive. Just like paying for utilities, or any other business services you receive.

Prove in any way how government jobs add to GDP and that they don't get paid through the taxation of others.

I will also add, that you can't have a thriving economy when you borrow 42 cents on the dollar to subsidize payments to those that create nothing.

http://www.criticalreactor.com/ronpaul/newsletters/1996_Dallas_Morning_News.html

This is disgusting. Defend this if you dare, Paulbots.

What's to defend Mr. Anon? A multiple timed debunked article that wasn't written by Dr. Paul? I think you should try defending your lack of knowledge on this and dig a little deeper, googling "bad ron paul stuff" isn't a very intelligent way.

I wish there was a word we could call people who bring up this stupid newsletter like the "truthers" and the "birthers"

But most state delegates are "committed" at least for the first ballot to the candidate for whom they were awarded a delegate seat. IF he's not going to be campaigning for delegate selection, how can he be trying to steal delegates through the back door. Did any of you think about that? Is that the type of candidate you want on the ballot or controlling the party platform? Just more dirty politics from another typical politician. Come November, cast a NONE OF THE ABOVE or NO VOTE ballot for every candidate for every office on your ballot. Then get involved in the Popular Amendment Movement at faircampaignreform(dot)us and help to change our electoral system before the 2014 elections.

Sorry but you are wrong. There are states that have caucuses and other obscure ways of getting delegates but in the majority of states the primary is meaningful and the delegate is bound, at least on the first ballot. Paul probably has more delegates, and Romney less, than the delegate count reported by the media but Paul has zero chance of winning the nomination, especially now that he has stopped campaigning.

@ Anti trust

Ronald reagan used the same strategy to get elected, is that the type of person you wanted to be president? its all clearly in the rules yet you make it seem because mitt romney won a few straw polls all delegates are bound to them and its slimy. the state convention may set a rule saying the delegate must be bound, but there are zero national convention rules that say that, therefor they are unbound delegates.

Well Anti-trust you are mistaken. In 2008 the RNC stated that NO delegate is bound and that they can vote their concience. They made that rule when a ROMNEY delegate refused to vote for McCain. I am sure now that it could help someone that is for the people the RNC will try to change the rules.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKKVdZMyq2g

BTW, ever wonder why if you look at 3 different sources you get 3 different delegate counts? It is because they are all FOS. Here is where to find the ACCURATE count. http://thereal2012delegatecount.com/

The GOP and Romney campaign are sweating. That is why they are still pulling fraud, breaking all RNC rules and trying to cheat Ron Paul at conventions.

I'm not familiar with the way delegates work, but from the few articles and what some of the better posters are saying, I think I see what he's doing. As I recall, to be the outright nominee a candidate needs 1,199 delegates. Delegates are bound to vote in a certain way for the first round. They can vote whatever way they please on subsequent votes.

So it sounds like Mr. Paul is going to cause quite a ruckus if Mr. Romney doesn't have the 1,199 by making sure delegates who are loyal to him are in place to vote for him in subsequent rounds. Thus there would have to be some brokering done in order for Mr. Romney to be officially the Republican candidate. Are my assumptions correct?

I wonder how the delegates for Mr. Santorum and Mr. Gringrich will play in the upcoming drama...

dang it 96 you beat me to it!

yes MD we call it a brokered convention, Romney will not get all the delegates he needs by the time we go to Florida.

From what I've seen on youtube (I know it's about as accurate as wikepedia) a lot of the Santorum voters are coming to the Paul camp, Gingrich's I'm not so sure about.

Ron Paul is a genius!

http://youtu.be/SzeoVUo1QCA

Let them keep thinking they know whats going on....

Paul 2012!

You Ron Paul supporters are the most delusional people on here. I agree with Paul on foreign policies and auditing the FED for the most part, but his economic policies would be a disaster to this great country. Paul proposes 1 TRILLION in spending cuts his first year in office, which would take an already anemic economic recovery into a full on depression.

Paul might be a good honest guy, but he doesn't know squat about economics. Look no further than who Paul considers as a great thinker of her time, Ayn Rand. Rand is a lady from communist Russia who advocates for greed in every aspect of life. IMO, greed is not something this country is in short supply of.

If you crazies think 1 trillion in cuts in 1 year would be a good thing, than I suggest taking an economic class and come back to reality. Look at what is going on in Europe. Those deep spending cuts they've put in place for the last 2 years has made things worse...not better. What makes you think these kinds of austerity measures would work here in the US?

Paul has already won. He has educated his supporters and encouraged them to become delegates so that decent people are elected at the local and state level. He has brought subjects that were never talked about before into the spotlight. Like it or not, his influence will shape the Republican party for years to come. Besides he has a kid that can continue his legacy in 2016. If Romney ends up being the nominee we will be stuck with 4 more years of Obama I'm afraid.

Ron Paul has too many tea baggage that made him unelectable, the biggest baggage is his son.

If Romney ends up being the nominee we will be stuck with 4 more years of Obama I'm afraid.

And that's even if Romney's elected. Meet the new boss same as the old boss.

If Romney ends up being the nominee we will be stuck with 4 more years of Obama I'm afraid.

Yes, we will. Thank you, GOP. Why couldn't someone ELSE run as an independent and both Dems and Reps MIGHT be taught a valuable lesson. 2008 was a ruse and now 2012 is a joke.

Whew, finally...... I am glad to see this. Ron Paul was a serious candidate for an America in 1896. His economic plans "or lack their of" combined with his determination to allow the states to decide civil rights issues was terrible.

Sadly, he should have stayed in... this would ensure the vote was split and a landslide for Obama.

IAT..........Ron Paul just said he is not going to actively campaign in the few remaining states, not dropping out of the race............Look for Paul to shake things up and announce his run as an independent after the republican convention. If Paul runs as an independent with Libertarian Johnson also in the race, 34% of the electorate could determine the next president....Never say never.

How is he a nut? Because he didn't support illegal wars, or he wants to make money worth the paper its printed on? Which one are you talking about?

What's nuts about people being responsible for themselves and having real money that can't be manipulated by bankers and liars? What's nuts about listening to the CIA terror experts who tell us that continued invasions cause harm and nothing good comes from them? What is nuts about getting rid of the IRS? I think backing people who lie, flip flop and continue the status quo is nuts (that's Romney and Obama).

Well heck yea. Anyone who doesn't take bribes and Lobbyist money and who doesn't want to continue to wage endless wars, wants to try to get the deficit under control and stop the Fed from counterfiting our future away MUST be a crackpot!

Celticone2- I hope you are aware that RP's plan for currency is to "allow the market to decide" what the value of the currency is. Those bankers and liars are "the market". He says manipulation will be less under a "full reserve" banking system (dunno how you enforce reserve requirements without government intervention though...). This is just one example of why rational people call him a fool, not just "brainwashed" masses. He goes into detail on his currency theories in numerous speeches, the one I can remember at the moment is his address to the CATO institute a few years ago.

Kushmann......You speak as if Paul will be allowed to dictate if he is elected, surely you know democrats and republicans in Congress will still write and pass the laws, and Congress does have power to override a president's veto.....Think rational

ideas are too far apart. romney sounds like like obama on a lot of issues anyways, a vote for romney is a vote of obama. considering how many state conventions are paul supporters and delegates are not bound, this is going to make for a VERY interesting convention

Actually the RNC already ruled in 2008 that Delegates are free agents and can vote with their conscience.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKKVdZMyq2g

Funny how the only news you have seen is when he says he is not campaigning and not that he has actually won 17 states. Nope you don't hear that at all.

Actually, a vote for Romney isn't the same as a vote for Obama. The main difference being that Romney's there to feed the corporations.

The main difference being that Romney's there to feed the corporations.

I guess the subsidies to big Pharma (400 billion, I believe) through Obamacare doesn't count. Or the now-multi-trillion dollar subsidies via stimulus to various entities doesn't count either. I wonder how it is that MSNBC was right there when Bush gave no-bid contracts to Halliburton, but couldn't seem to put the pieces together when Obama gave out magnitudes more to seemingly everyone...

Interesting.

Oh yea Spartan...because Obamas there to feed the Unions, George Soros and failed green energy companies....wait, isn't Goldman Sachs considered a corporation? I guess that means they are quite similar.

It's nice to see the true believers soldier on. What 17 states? The article says he has won 0. The vote for Ron Paul seemed to be in the 10-15% range in the primaries. How do you even get convention floor time with those numbers?

Romney needs to humor Ron Paul because he will need every vote he can get. Ron Paul cannot win but he can stop Romney.

realist,

Don't you get it the MSM is LYING TO YOU. Paul has OFFICIALLY WON 4 states and looks likely to take 13 more. gaining the most delegates wins a state NOT POPULAR VOTE.

Try this:

Look at usatoday, CNN and NBC for delegate counts and you will get 3 different counts because they are all SPECULATION based on popular vote that MEANS NOTHING.

This is where to find an accurate count based on ONLY BOUND delegates. It also has a lot of info an how the process works. You could obviously learn something here since you obviously don't undersatnd it based on your post. (don't feel bad most people don't understand it becuase it is very complicated)

http://thereal2012delegatecount.com/

Now you understand why the Romney camp is still fighting at every convention. The race is very close not a done deal like the MSM would like you to believe.

I've noticed trying to explain the delegate process doesn't really work. When Ron Paul wins it, that's when a lot of people are going to think he cheated. Some may scratch their heads and say to themselves, 'hey maybe that's what that guy was trying to tell me'.

I am voting for Ron Paul, he was robbed, we have been lied to, it is all a corrupt sham

I'm just saying that feeding corporations is Romney's primary, if not only, purpose. Obama's fed corporations, but Romney's going in with a massive number of corporate ties. At least Obama has the decency to try (and fail) to solve problems.

Obviously neither of them is nearly as clean as Ron Paul.

If you want to know Ron Pauls progress with delegates watch this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxZyGewLxck&feature=share

Oh, I get it now. All the media are reporting actual vote tallies, all of which have Ron Paul running 2nd, 3rd, or 4th, in that aspect Ron Paul hasn't won a single state. But that doesn't matter to the Paulites, they barge in on the conventions, shout down the opposition, override the vote tallies, and get their own delegates on the roster. By the Paulite tally, that counts as a "win", pay no attention to what the actual voters say.

Keep at it, Paulites, that strategy just might get your beloved Paul in as the Republican nominee, and sincerely, I hope it does. The majority of Republicans will cry foul, as they are not Paulites and don't particularly like Libertarians, but they'll be stuck with a Hobsons choice. Then in the general election, Paul will loose badly, as a majority of the voters are not Paulites either.

This whole Teapublican farce of a primary has been supremely entertaining to the Democrats.

CM-6969, I think you meant to say "in the general election, Paul will LOSE badly." Unless there is something called "badly" that Ron Paul is going to let loose.

Choose vs. chose

Loose vs. lose

No Child Left Behind has defined a generation.

This election is all about anybody but Paul from both sides. The media from left and right has spent this entire election lying about him or marginalize him, belittling him and at times acting as if he did not exist. The RNC has spent the election rigging caucuses and yet it gets no coverage. If the left wasn't in on it, they would be covering the fraud. The fed doesn't care who wins as long as it isn't Paul.

The media didn't lie about Paul, they just ignored him because he is not as entertaining as the other nut jobs like Santorum, Perry and Bachmann, and who could forget Newt?

what, LOL? i can already tell the Paul family's intelligence is far superior to yours especially considering you call people "fruit cake" and "stupid" without any substantial claim to why they are what you speak of

LADY JAG,

Number one, you must not know much about Dr. Paul, and number two, what does Kentucky having great horses, have to do with voting him out? That certainly was thrown in out of left field...what am I supposed to think about? Horses? Who are you calling nuts?!

Come on, the guy is a whackadoodle and the country, at least those of us that pay attention know he is. His dad is only a shade better. Here's to hoping Kentucky gets their act together and votes him back into private practice.

I am glad he is not my docotor,

I'm glad he's not my docotor either. I wouldn't want anyone like that being my docotor.

BTW, what is a docotor? (hehe couldn't resist...!)

Ron Paul 2012!

For someone who should never have run in the first place - I sure see A LOT of Ron Paul campaign signs, bumper stickers people continue to display. He may not have been a shoe in but he certainly has a lot of people's attention and support for whatever reasons.

Look, anyone who opposes civil rights has no business wasting the voters' time.

Agreed. But this election is a huge waste of time.

Toasty sweetheart we've been through this more than once haven't we? You were wrong then you're wrong now.

I voted in our primary today I was wearing my Ron Paul revolution shirt, they made me go in the bathroom and turn it inside out because it was advertising, I obliged. But when i was done voting and came out I went in turned my shirt right side out and proudly placed my I voted sticker on it.

Raychel, this man would be dangerous in office:

Six rights you could lose under a Ron Paul Presidency

Six rights you could lose under a Ron Paul Presidency

One of these is -

4. Your right to show a lack of respect to the U.S. flag.

The rest are just asinine and/or completely false. Eat it up Toasty, they're feeding it to you.

Let the old crazy have some say at the convention. No matter what He says or does, it will be no more than pouring his particular elixir into the republican brine pot. They're all a bunch of ill slung, pickled chitlins.

I'm guessing you didn't even read the article, Naughty? Well done, you're off to a great start...

Toasty, ......As an adamant Constitutionalist, no one defends civil rights more than Ron Paul, you really should not believe everything you hear, especially if it is by way of the wall street corporate media who is pushing for a multi-billion dollar ad campaign between Obama-vs Romney

No, he claims to be a constitutionalist. But that's the fullest extent; hos voting record suggests starkly otherwise.

Mr. Baumgarner,

You write, "As an adamant Constitutionalist, no one defends civil rights more than Ron Paul. . . ." You couldn't be more wrong. Dr. Paul is an constitutional moron who tries to make you think he's erudite when he's really never been anything more than an arrogant pretender.

For example, Dr.Paul and other states right fanatics misunderstand the 10th Amendment and how the Supreme Court has actually ignored the 10th Amendment in deciding the limits of congressional authority. Since 1942, there have been two (2) decisions overturning federal legislation on 10th Amendment grounds, two cases with special facts involving imposition of burdens on the states themselves. The scope of congressional authority since 1942 has been determined not by any limits imposed by the 10th Amendment but instead by the scope of the Commerce Clause. For example, the Supreme Court's review of Obamacare now is based on whether the individual mandate exceeds the scope of the Commerce Clause, not whether the 10th Amendment limits congressional power to enact healthcare reform legislation.

Dr. Paul has no problem banning abortions, even though such bans have been outlawed by Rowe v. Wade since 1973, but just thinks it's a state's job to do so because of his warped view of the 10th Amendment. No one has called Dr. Paul's attention to how governmental prohibition of abortion utterly violates his so-called Libertarian principles of getting government out of our personal lives. Dr. Paul has stated that because he delivered 4000 babies, he knows that life begins at conception. This may be as asinine a statement as any politician has ever uttered--when life begins has been, is, and will always be a question for philosophers or politicians, and cannot be answered based on the personal observation of a quirky obstetrician when he was in the Army attending to women nine months after they had conceived.

However, the most disturbing example of Dr. Paul's erroneous beliefs about our Constitution concerns the First Amendment's religion clauses. According to him, "The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance." This is demonstrably wrong, according to no less an authority than the United States Supreme Court, which has consistently recognized that the purpose of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment was to build or erect a wall separating Church and State, according to Thomas Jefferson, whose group crafted the clause:

"[A]t the first session of the first Congress the amendment now under consideration was proposed with others by Mr. Madison. It met the views of the advocates of religious freedom, and was adopted. Mr. Jefferson afterwards, in reply to an address to him by a committee of the Danbury Baptist Association (8 id. 113), took occasion to say: 'Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions,-I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.' Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured." Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 164 (1878) (emphasis added).

"This Court first reviewed a challenge to state law under the Establishment Clause in Everson v. Board of Ed. of Ewing, 330 U.S. 1, 67 S.Ct. 504, 91 L. Ed. 711 (1947).1 Relying on the history of the Clause, and the Court's prior analysis, Justice Black outlined the considerations that have become the touchstone of Establishment Clause jurisprudence: Neither a State nor the Federal Government can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither a State nor the Federal Government, openly or secretly, can participate in the affairs of any religious organization and vice versa.2 "In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and State.' "Everson, 330 U.S., at 16, 67 S. Ct., at 511 (quoting Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 164, 25 L. Ed. 244 (1878)). Even the Everson dissenters agreed: "The Amendment's purpose ... was to create a complete and permanent separation of the spheres of religious activity and civil authority by comprehensively forbidding every form of public aid or support for religion." 330 U.S., at 31–32, 67 S. Ct., at 519–520 (Rutledge, J., dissenting, joined by Frankfurter, Jackson, and Burton, JJ.); accord, Lee v. Weisman, 505 US 577, 599-600 (1992)(emphasis added).

So what does Paul say about these court decisions: "Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view. The justification is always that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended or feel uncomfortable living in the midst of a largely Christian society, so all must yield to the fragile sensibilities of the few. The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity." So this arrogant twit, who is not educated in law, purports to be a higher legal authority on what the Founding Fathers intended by the religious clauses in the First Amendment than the Supreme Court, the final authority on what the Constitution means, has consistently ruled since 1878.

To me, Dr. Paul resembles many conservatives, who rant about a variety of things being unconstitutional without knowing what part of the Constitution is purportedly being violated or without know much about the Constitution or how it's been interpreted by the Supreme Court. Actually, Dr. Paul is worse than most--he makes specious statements about both the intent of the Founding Fathers and about Constitutional provisions, thereby sowing the seeds of ignorance among his naive followers like you, Mr. Baumgarner.

Michael L. Marowitz
J.D., J.S.M. (Master's Degree in law with emphasis on constitutional law, Stanford Law School, 1981)

Answer: 8 minutes!

If you've been following the campaign from the beginning and you haven't been willfully blind, you would realize the media played a big part. He would have been the frontrunner otherwise.

us Paul "fanatics" are going to be just fine thanks, you people are the one voting status quo, so if Dr. Paul doesn't win, those of us who voted for him with a clear conscience be able to call the rest of you dumb asses. We'll also suffer along with you.

Yes, please vote for Ron Paul instead of Romney. Maybe he'll be the Ralph Nader-esque spoiler of 2012.

Ralph Nader candidates said EXACTLY the same thing in 2000, and we all know how that went.

What rock have you been sleeping under? We'v been robbed by the government for years, ron is the only way to go.

Romney has 966 delegates. Paul has 104. So does this mean that Santorum (264) and Gingrich (130), who are both ahead of Paul, are still in this horse race?

I admire your optimism/ disregard for reality, but this one is over.

I'm pretty sure Romney doesn't have that many delegates locked down. Remember how they projected Romney taking the majority in Iowa, Washington, Maine, Nevada... well the fact is that Dr. Paul ended up taking most delegates in these places. So delegate projections were off.

Romney has 966 delegates. Paul has 104.

Actually, neither of them "has" any delegates. Each state Republican party does, and the delegates they send are free to vote any way they want. And Romney has no where near the enthusiasm that Ron Paul has.

clotho your delegate counts are BS you don't understand the system

By your own definition I am left wondering if you are a Ron Paul hater

I don't hate Ron Paul....he's a nice old man. Has not clue what he's talking about though... For all of his polices he's been useless in Congress. Has never submitted a bill that went to a vote, in 30+ years has not authored a single bill that became law....now that's who you want running the country.

Retarded would be voting for the guy.

Don -

He managed to get the FED audited and discovered trillions in undisclosed funding.....let's see, get a bunch of do nothing, spend everything bills passed or get the federal reserve under wraps? From one perspective, he's probably the most effective law maker we have.

ALSO - he tries to pass laws that actually follow the constitution (you know, legal laws)...I guess for you it quantity not quality. You should write Newt Gingrich in.

Don

Maybe you should actually read some of the laws he tries to pass. They don't pass becuase they would help you and me and not wallstreet.

Mom,

You may be interested in where to find an ACCURATE delegate count.

http://thereal2012delegatecount.com/

Also a lot of good information on how the process works here.

I'm sure Romney is shaking in his boots....

You're the same guy demanding the government to protect your borders.

The government should do what people can't do for themselves, and nothing more. So that means we need the government OUT of our daily lives.

We need government OUT of our lives...EXCEPT when it comes to women's vaginas. Atleast that's what these Republican politicians have been saying lately with their actions.

The fact that you don't understand WHY Paul is still in it is further proof that voting should be a right, not a privilege.

Voting is a right, not a privilege.

So you agree with his social issues and his foreign policy issues but you can't get behind him? That makes sense how? Is it the word Libertarian that scares you? I'm really not seeing your point here.

The problem is that Paul says something reasonable or intelligent; but then he spoils it with some crazy talk. Getting rid of the Federal Reserve, or going back to the gold standard, or eliminating income tax. We can't go back to the 19th century, as much as the man wants us to. His nuttier policies only serve to fuel the conspiracy theorists.

As a practical matter, he has done almost nothing in his many, many years in Congress. He doesn't draft legislation or work well with others. He just gripes about how much better things were when he was a boy. That is not a recipe for a good President.

Wife - He's lost....has no chance to get the nomination, none. Repeat, none. Voting for him would be like saying you're going to vote for Reagan because you like his polices. Problem with that vote and Ron Pauls is it's dead on arrival.

And no, I don't like his social or foreign policy stances. Like the other guy, I think government has no business getting involved in many of the social issues, (but Ron Paul doesn't even follow that entirely), I hate his monetary policy, and while I do think we shouldn't be world cop, he takes it to such extremes I can't even go with that.

In a nutshell, he's a nutcase.

Clotho,.....What do you mean we cannot go back, are you suggesting things are as good as they can get, or are better than anytime past ? We had better head somewhere pretty soon, moss is starting to grow on our feet.

And remember, presidents only approve or reject laws and administrate enforcement of laws on the books. Ron Paul is the perfect bitter pill to force the children in Congress to stop fighting and play togeher.

They also enjoy things like edible food and breathable air.

It's an absolute miracle that people were actually able to eat food and breathe air before the United States government created agencies to ensure that air is still air and that food is still legally considered food...

Those things were around for a long time before our government stepped in....

You mean when the country had five million people, as opposed to over 300 million?

I'm old enough to remember when we were destroying the ozone layer in the 1970s, before the EPA and the Clean Air Act saved it.

Pink slime is food. Help your self naughty.

Clotho.......Haven't you heard about global warming, apparently the EPA did not save anything

I was around in the 40s, 50s, 60s and 70s and the only places where pollution was a serious problem have not changed to this day.

Do you remember the river that would burn if you threw a match in it? If it weren't for those regulations about pollution, we would have no clean drinking water and the air would be unfit to breathe in major portions of our country. Corporations would have continued to pollute because a corporation only exists to make profit, not to make good moral decisions. That's why we need to have a reasonably strong central government.

He's not out. This is more BS to trick the masses.

We didn't land on the moon either, right?

Oh I forgot its only Presidents Obama's his fault when prices goes up! I forgot the fox protocol!!

Walter.....did you have this same view when gas prices were going UP???

somehow.......I doubt it.

Hey Red DevPS,

The main reason we got into this mess in the first place was floating the dollar with nothingbacking it. Evey time in world history an empire or nation inflated its currency up the wazoo with nothing of value backing it up that empire/nation fell. Do you prefer what these stooges have been doing for almost the past 100 years, and that is spending like drunken sailors while inflating the currency? Problem is too many people don't think at all about economics, and it shouldn't be hard to. Most of it is just common sense.