Ron Paul -- one of the few with enough brains to see from day one through the myriad of lies and excuses Bush/Cheney gave as reasons we needed to attack Iraq.

For a while Ron Paul was my rep before the insane gerrymandering.

Not that he can make this disaster any different, but he isn't a thief.

We wouldn't know how to react with an honest man of principle in the White House.

I noticed the media blackout over Ron Paul's obvious lead in the online polls. Sad.

The MSM are committed to ignoring Ron Paul as much as possible. Here in blog-world even Spud the lefty leaning tater finds the guy fascinating.

Anti-War? That HUGE!
Pro-Life? Well, the righties'll like him for that.
A Goldwater typa Republican? That's cool.
Wants to return to small gov./ Low taxes? Okaaay.
an "original intent" guy? That's original.

All in all, he's the only one of them worth discussing really except for the gang of three "Brownback, Huckaberry and Tancredo" or as they have also been called "the unevolved". And those guys you only mention in order to make fun of their appalling ignorance. And maybe to point how having an ignorant POTUS doesn't seem to be a really good plan fer America, if Dumbya is any kinda indicator.

At 71, Ron Paul looks a lot sprier than a lot of them other mental midgets out there.

McCain seems to age visibly before your eyes as he keeps on telling all those lies.

Rudy just looks sleazier the more you look at him.

Tommy Thompson gives off an almost senile vibe.

* BRRRR *

Shades of Reagans brain.

Fred Thompson and Newt allegedly are thinking about throwing their hats inna ring sometime soonish.

Newt would be a disaster. Fred? Hmm.

RP is still the most interesting one by far.

Be Well.

It is a shame that Ron Paul is snubed by the media. This country needs truth and integrity and that describes R P to a tee. If people would just read what he says. Go to his web site! He cowtows to no special groups.

I noticed the media blackout over Ron Paul's obvious lead in the online polls. Sad.

Posted by I_N_Cognito

I was watching Meet the Press on Sunday and after one our of the Spin Express with McCain, Tim Russert said that this is part of a series interviews where they will invite the mayor candidates. In other words, it is the media who choses for the American people who the two or three "major" candidates on each of the two "major".

I guess journalists don't have enough brain cells to keep track of all the candidates. Or maybe the forgot how to count to ten, something they probably never learner in kindergarten anyways. They are so stupid that they make the mistake of thinking we the people are stupid too, that we can't keep track of so many candidates.

Fuck Tim Russert and all the rest ot fhe elitist media who have already cornonated the "major" candidates.

Fuck Tim Russert and all the rest ot fhe elitist media who have already cornonated the "major" candidates.

Considering there's 9 months to the first primary you'd think they'd interview a few more. I think Lou Dobbs has been the only one to give Dr Paul an interview.

Washington is so inbred it makes me sick.

please...give us all a break.....how typical. fanatics from the left are all gaga over this fine gentleman because he is antiwar and that means there is some good ole bush bashing on the horizon. and even though his candidacy gets taowarrior all wet in certain places, all of you must face reality in today's political world. he has as much chance of being president as I DO......and what do you think those odds of that happening are???????????

BLT2, I don't care about the odds, I never thought elections were a betting game. Debating Paul, is NOT bashing Bush, but in your narrow world you see it that way.

The guy is a fricken loon. Period.

B,

What specifically don't you like about Ron Paul?

all of you must face reality in today's political world. he has as much chance of being president as I DO


Sad, but true.


It's sad that a highly qualified, honorable man can't garner any serious traction. The whole thing speaks to just how broken out political system is.

ah but coyote....it is because anytime the left can point to someone who says he is a republican, even though he really isnt, and tells us...see there....even the right is against bush...thats bashing because paul is just a tad more of a republican than chuck hagel is....and thats pretty much name only.........
all of this doesnt mean that I dont think paul wouldnt be okay as pres.....and I can tell you that if he were, the left would be at odds with him on many..MANY ISSUES......especailly when he would tell them that government is not supposed to take care of each one of you from the womb to the tomb.........

Ron Paul isn't a Republican?

Jeff, he isn't a republican, he's a libertarian. His plan to disband multiple governmental agencies is downright dangerous. His refusal to fund any program he doesn't deem to be "constitutional" will cause unbelievable turmoil in Washington. I could go on--but most of my arguments are the reasons i don't agree with libertarians in general--all of their ideas sound great in a vacuum--but when you start to dig deeper into their impact, you realize how much of a problem they'd cause if they actually got their way.

No FDA, no OSHA, No FAA, no SEC, no IRS, no FCC, no FTC...

Of course everyone can point to a few problems with each of those agencies--but in sum, they're quite beneficial and essential to our economy and country as a whole. I wouldn't want to trust the private sector to police drug companies, control the allocation of airwaves, regulate consolidation of industries to prevent monopolistic practices, etc. We've tried that in the past and the damage those trials in the past are what gave rise to those agencies in the first place.

That being said, there are a few ideas i do like of his--it is just that his loony ideas are so unbelievably damaging (and are rarely talked about except in the abstract, so people don't realize what he actually wants to do) that i can't in any way support this guy. He literally is the Dennis Kucinich of the Right.

No FDA, no OSHA, No FAA, no SEC, no IRS, no FCC, no FTC...

Really? I might have to vote for the guy after all.

Then you're an idiot, Redman.

rcade....come on......a political animal like you wasnt even aware that ron paul has already been a national candidate for president.......of the libertarian party. it was some years ago and the fact that he now calls himslef a republican is another issue of his campaign.
I do know that he seems to have represented the people of the lake jackson region here in texas so that people there swear by him.....in that good way of course.

come on b.........you did see the part about NO IRS...........hee hee


and that reminds me......are those of you aware that the district he is from is extremely heavily large corporation....as in refinaries.....I believe the international headquarters of dupont is located there........and now.....is there a story about why he would want to do away with osha????????????????

BL2---he wants to disband any agency that he thinks isn't authorized by the constitution. That is pretty much all of them.

and so how would a liberal reconcile that he would want to disband an organization founded for the safety of american workers from a rep of a district laden with huge refinaries and such....
and even more...what would danni say? yuk yuk

I mean isnt there a conflict there that would cause him some problems.

oh yeah and...I am not disagreeing with you or anything as I have heard him talk on the subject several times........
and I dont always agree with nonsense from osha either.......but it would be a conflict that he might not be able to weather.

No FDA, no OSHA, No FAA, no SEC, no IRS, no FCC, no FTC...


The 16th Ammendment allows for taxation of income - the IRS isn't going any where.


As to his other aspirations, only Congress can dissolve those agencies.

With Ron as President, we'd see him push to remove many agencies - he'd apply so much pressure that Congress would be forced to take a hard-look at some of the governmental waste and eliminate some of the egregious stuff to placate a public that would be fired up by Ron's rhetoric.

BL2--i agree it would be a difficult position to hold, politically. But that is the same for many of his positions. Not only are they difficult to hold, but they're fricken insane!

I appreciate a man of his convictions--but not when his conviction involves driving us off of a cliff!

Jeff---i'm not willing to take that risk. He is the head of the executive branch--and he can, by executive order, dissolve any executive agency. Remember, they're not part of the legislative branch, they're part of the executive branch (which is the foundation for the reason behind why they're arguably unconstitutional).


Can you imagine him trying to get a budget passed? It wouldn't happen. They'd need to override every single bill he vetoes. NOTHING WOULD GET DONE. And the fact of the matter is, if he was overrode constantly--what is the use having him as president?

B,

He's a Jeffersonian.

His political leanings put him in the small central government - greater states' rights - narrow interpretation of the Constitution camp.

That's hardly radical. In fact much of our history was under such governance.

B,


i'm not willing to take that risk.


Fortunately for you, you won't have to.

Ron Paul will not be voted president.

"Ron Paul will not be voted president."

Better this one than most of the other yahoos running or attempting to run (only my opinion, mind you).

_B_, I don't think he wants to dissolve all of them... most of them, yes (IRS being the highest priority target, no doubt), but not all. He's also pro-life (though I'm not completely sure how far "pro-life" he is, I haven't been able to find as much as I'd like on his stance with this issue), and (unless I've completely misread certain statements) he's actually in favor of a national health insurance system (I think something similar to the proposed plan that Bill O'Reilly had linked to some time ago; I am personally against such a plan, for reasons I'd mentioned in another thread regarding Obama's remarks toward corporate welfare for the heanlth and health insurance fields).

Not that it matters. All DR readers and posters will vote for me in '08 anyway. That's right, you are getting very sleepy, and will obey the post-hypnotic suggestion to vote for me. Now when I snap mky fingers, you won;t remember anything about this thread. *snap*

That's right, LetUsReason '08, because I can't trust anybody else to run this whacked out country.

I'm LUR and I approved this message, because it's funny, I don't care who you are, that's funny right there.

Damn, I can't type for beans today... oh well.

Yeah, and in the past--all of those policies FAILED horribly. He almost wants it back to the Articles of Confederation. A toothless empty shell of a government and powerfull independent states. We all know how that turned out.

His ideas certainly ARE radical in light of the scope of his changes. There is nothing ordinary about his views.

_B_, I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that you refer to the War Between the States a couple centuries back, yes?

It may be optimistic on my part, but... I'd like to think we can avoid tearing ourselves to shreds like that again, having (hopefully) learned certain valuable lessons.

But then again, humans being the morons that they are (and never forget I have never denied being one of thoe very morons), your fear may well be justifed.

LUR--

A lot of the issues we faced in the past between states would certainly go on today if there were no commerce clause nor domant commerce clause. States will inevitably fight for their best interests--and, just like individuals and corporations--could, for the most part, give a rats ass about its affect on others. I don't even want to begin to think of the conflict between states that would be restarted due to the removal of the legislative and judicial acts/decisions that had previously settled the issues.


You wouldn't believe the number of cases i read just on states dealing with waste. States were enacting statutes that prevent other states from dumping in their states. Just imagine re-opening that and the thousands of other cans of worms.

JEFFJ, it can go somewhere if he gets elected. Just because it gives authority to collect taxes doesnt mean it gives the obligation to do so. He can simply not do it.

"constitutional" will cause unbelievable turmoil in Washington." B

his positions. Not only are they difficult to hold, but they're fricken insane! B

his conviction involves driving us off of a cliff!

Its a sad state of affairs when a typical moron considers the principals of the constitution insane.

Your failure to understand that Ron Paul is not a lunitic as you paint him to be, merely a true conservative. If he were to become President he would work to steer the country back towards minimalist government that allows individual freedom. Its a novel concept that worked for the first half of our nations history, until Wilson formed the IRS and Federal Reserve system that entreched the power elites grip on our government that has crippled true Republican values ovet the last 100 years.

By assuming the worst you fail before you start, wake up and give someone who could really help this ocuntry a chance. Or do you prefer to have the likes of George Bush driving the country off a cliff.

By the way how many times did you vote for George W Bush B??

Typical moron? Excuse me? I'll match constitutional wits with you any fricken day. I put the word "constitutional" in quotes because of his idea of what constitutional means is so unbelievably narrow. I could probably count the number of people with my hands who actually agree with his constitutional arguments and actually have a law degree.

The idea of bringing a country back towards a "minimalist" government as you put it--sounds all nice and wonderful--but the reality is, we live in an unbelievably complex world and to dissolve agencies such as the FDA, FCC, FTC, etc.--we would have to TRUST private companies to self regulate--something that will inevitably result in the public getting screwed and/or killed. Any discussion at length with a libertarian makes me realize they're either (a) ignorant of the true workings of this country (sometimes willfully); (b) undully trusting of private companies/individuals; (c) consumed by the idea of lower taxes without thinking about its costs; (d) unable to focus on the big picture - i.e. losing the forest for the trees - when looking at problems with our federal government. Personal freedom is wonderful until they go unchecked and result in our entire securities markets are destroyed, the poor have no means to obtain food, worker saftey goes to the shitter because of no OSHA, taking pharmaceutical drugs becomes extremely risky and monompolies form and ruin our fully functioning capitalist markets. If you think there is a concentration of wealth now, just imagine what the world would be like without any anti-competitive trade regulations.

I think Ron Paul is just as dangerous as GWB--just in different ways. And i can assure you, i have never voted for GWB.

And to add--one of the reasons why we are seen as a great country to investment in is our trade laws, securities laws, etc. Strip those away and we're back to corruption, theft, mistrust in the markets, etc.--all of which will ultimately cause people to invest elsewhere.

"Any discussion at length with a libertarian makes me realize they're either (a) ignorant of the true workings of this country (sometimes willfully); (b) undully trusting of private companies/individuals; (c) consumed by the idea of lower taxes without thinking about its costs; (d) unable to focus on the big picture - i.e. losing the forest for the trees - when looking at problems with our federal government. "

Well said. Actually it's all of the above, _B_.

BLT: Ron Paul has been serving in Congress as a Republican for 10 years. If he's not a Republican because he was formerly a Republican, Reagan is not a Republican either, because he was a Democrat until he was 51.

Personally, I think the Republicans could do themselves a lot of good by taking Paul and his ideas seriously. They've completely lost sight of the libertarian principles that coincide well with many Americans who desire a government that leaves them the hell alone.

Well B you seem to paint a picture of Ron Paul as a pie in the sky idealist. Yet he has maintained a presence in congress since the 70's. He obviously understands what is and isn't possible in the legistlative system. You come out and say he wants to do away with a host of beurocratic layers and that it will never work because you trust the government more than you trust the open market.

Here is some news for you, the free market now owns the government through lobbyists and other inbreed payola schemes. The entire system is controlled from the top down by world bank systems that manipulate our politicians to no end. They are able to do so because we keep expanding the power of the federal goevernment and continue to consolidating power.

The Constitutions basic principals are actually contradicted by government today. You accuse Paul of having a narrow interpretation without offering an example of those accusations. If he says something in regard to the constitution and its true, then that is NOT a narrow point of view. You are typical in pointing fingers and offering blame but offering nothing of substance in return, basically worthless bandwidth.