I don't like everything about Paul. I live in Taiwan, which he thinks is a part of China (I'm rabidly oppossed to this position). I'm pro-choice and I don't want to dismantle the Federal Reserve.

But for me, the most important issues in this campaign are:

1) rolling back the Executive authority Bush has claimed, and ending the indefinite detention of citizens / domestic spying / secret CIA prisons / military tribunals / shipping people to be tortured in allied countries, not to mention restoring habeas corpus.

2) having a rational foreign policy that does not involve spending a trillion dollars a year to maintain an empire that only hurts our national interests.

And for me, a leftist, Paul is the only guy who cares about or talks about those two issues, so I feel I must support him.

And when polls indicate 70% of Republican primary voters haven't heard enough about Paul to decide if they like him or not, is the problem really his platform or the lack of exposure?

Thanks,

--
Jason
Houston, TX
(living in Taiwan)

RP FTW 2008. RP = next POTUS

The election is in the Bag, Ron Paul, the next POTUS.

People are screaming FRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEDOOOOOOOOM!

They will have to kill this guy like they did JFK and RK to stop him.

For those you say Guy Fawkes Day is creepy, may I remind you that England annually celebrates Guy Fawkes day. It is the Brit's 4th of July. So are you saying that all English people are creepy? They might disagree with you wholeheartedly!

Happy/Unhappy and Satisfied/Unsatisfied are psychological/physical states of being. It is totally inappropriate to dismiss American voters by putting them in some stereotypic bucket and dismissing them in a slap hand manner. Sounds good on paper, but the truth of the matter is that American voters are educated and cognizant indepth of Policy issues, and therefore are questioning current Policy directions. Candidates who do not get onboard and lay their political philosophy and direction on the table for discussion and dissection before the American people will not get the votes. Mainstream Americans aren't going to vote for candidates who aren't aware of the problems America is facing, and certainly not those candidates who want to ignore the reality.

" ---
Forget this, let's just go back to the days of our founding fathers and the Constitution of 1787. Back when women and blacks and poor non-landowners couldn't vote, education and health care were luxuries of the elites, economic depressions meant you got kicked out on the street, and white and black people couldn't swim in the same pools... You know, the good old days.

Posted by: thetraytiger | November 7, 2007 03:29 PM
--- "

...and people had to use outhouses, and died of smallpox! Oh my!

The above argument is a example of a Straw Man Fallacy (see: http://www.fallacies.info/strawman.html).

Ron Paul does not propose to time travel to 1787. He proposes to obey the current Constitution of the United States.

Amendment 14 of the U.S. Constitution: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Amendment 15 of the U.S. Constitution: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."

Removing the Department of Education (established in 1980) would only remove federal regulation of education, not education itself. That's a state issue (more constitutional quotes apply, but you get the idea).

But yes, in a non-socialist, non-communist system, people with different incomes do indeed have different options for health insurance, car insurance, home insurance, food, clothing, and housing. People with still get kicked out in the street if their resources fall to zero during an economic depression.

The sky is not falling, ad Ron Paul won't be able to make it fall.

Ron Paul knows that "Terror" is:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=881321004838285177&q=power+of+nightmares&total=379&start=0&num=100&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

Forget this, let's just go back to the days of our founding fathers and the Constitution of 1787. Back when women and blacks and poor non-landowners couldn't vote, education and health care were luxuries of the elites, economic depressions meant you got kicked out on the street, and white and black people couldn't swim in the same pools... You know, the good old days.

By reading your article or listening to the radio or TV commentators you are all assuming we are all creepy Internet users. I discovered Ron Paul 3 years ago on an interview on C-span. I loved his ideas. He voted against the patriot act, voted against the war in Iraq in 2002, is against torture and the suppression of habeas corpus and he loves Ludwig Von Mises who was a free market economist. By the way, Governor Schwarzenegger loves Von Misses too.
How can these evangelists preach love and anti-abortion and back G.O.P politicians who are for torture of prisoners of war and are denied habeas corpus.? Or stand by these candidates who are still in favor of a war that was illegal and unconstitutional from the beginning. Over 654.000 Iraqis have died. That is creepy!!!!
I am a mother of two wonderful boys and my husband is the typical American who works in an big corporation. We are not Internet creepy fanatics, but because the main stream media barely mentions Ron Paul, I get all the news I want from this incredible man through the Internet. Example I read your article through the daily e-mails the Washington Post sends me. After all Drudge Report said that 80 % of Americans are Internet users.
He is not getting attention because of skill or luck, he is admired because he is a man of principle and ethics. If you look at his record in congress, he practices what he preaches, unlike all of the other candidates of both parties. But the special interest groups are in despair if this man wins so they are doing all they can to discredit him and make him look like a lunatic. Including the N.R.A.
Elizabeth

By reading your article or listening to the radio or TV commentators you are all assuming we are all creepy Internet users. I discovered Ron Paul 3 years ago on an interview on C-span. I loved his ideas. He voted against the patriot act, voted against the war in Iraq in 2002, is against torture and the suppression of habeas corpus and he loves Ludwig Von Mises who was a free market economist. By the way, Governor Schwarzenegger loves Von Misses too.
How can these evangelists preach love and anti-abortion and back G.O.P politicians who are for torture of prisoners of war and are denied habeas corpus.? Or stand by these candidates who are still in favor of a war that was illegal and unconstitutional from the beginning. Over 654.000 Iraqis have died. That is creepy!!!!
I am a mother of two wonderful boys and my husband is the typical American who works in an big corporation. We are not Internet creepy fanatics, but because the main stream media barely mentions Ron Paul, I get all the news I want from this incredible man through the Internet. Example I read your artilcle through the daily e-mails the Washington Post sends me. After all Drudge Report said that 80 % of Americans are Internet users.
He is not getting attention because of skill or luck, he is admired because he is a man of principle and ethics. If you look at his record in congress, he practices what he preaches, unlike all of the other candidates of both parties. But the special interest groups are in despair if this man wins so they are doing all they can to discredit him and make him look like a lunatic. Including the N.R.A.
Elizabeth

In Houston when we were allowed to carry concealed weapons the crime rate dropped over 30%. Enough said. Gun Control increases crime, citizens with guns reduces it.

RON PAUL CAN WIN AND THE POLLS ARE BS.
Bush won the 2004 nomination with no competition.

As incumbent wartime president he was guaranteed victory in the primaries.

The only reason to vote in the 2004 primary was to show support for Bush and the Iraq War. IF the Republicans were so gung-ho about Bush and the war in 2004, they would have flocked to the primaries and support him.

But, they did NOT. The 2004 Republican turnout was the lowest in history. Those who voted in it are staunch Bush supporters and war Hawks.

All the "Scientific Polls" are ONLY contacting that very low percentage of Die hard Bush supporters and war hawks.

They are a fring element and do not represent the Republican party as a whole. These polls are not "scientific" and in fact are SERIOUSLY FLAWED because they represent a very small group of hawkish staunch bush supporters and not the average Joe Republican, not to mention the droves of moderate democrats and independents who have registered to vote for Ron PAul in the Primaries.

RON PAUL CAN WIN THE NOMINATION!!

Ron Paul has won 17 straw polls and every single online poll!!!

Early Primary victories will prove Ron Paul can win!!

RON PAUL CAN WIN THE NOMINATION!!

To original poster -- I'm a gambling man and your bet about guns vs. RP supporters -- well you lose. Please send all proceeds to PokerStars.com where I shall parley them into huge winnings for Dr. Paul...

If you think there's something "semi-creepy" about commemorating Guy Fawkes Day with a Ron Paul fund raiser, maybe you should take a look at how Roman Catholics were treated 16th and 17th century England. They were often imprisoned and tortured for refusing to renounce their faith. The Jesuit John Gerard, a contemporary of Guy Fawkes, contended that Fawkes was set up in order prevent James I from implementing more tolerant policies towards Catholics.

I think many people miss Ron Paul's support. He is drawing from a wide range of very unhappy voters and it would be a mistake to ignore them. The same conservatives that elected Bush to the White House and republicans to majorities in the house and senate felt betrayed when, instead of pursuing a conservative agenda, those republicans instead chose to chase support among liberals. They didn't find that support and lost ours. Taxpayers who are tired of seeing billions in US dollars sent overseas. Veterans and active duty military (Paul gets more of their donations than any other candidate) who are tired of being placed in harms way as a police force. The military breaks things. Period. Just about ANYONE who feels that they are better qualified to spend their money, save for their future, educate their children, decide what to do with their own property, choose the course of their own healthcare, etc. Can anyone point to any of these things that the government does well, without a system rife with waste and fraud that WE pay for? The tax code is so complex that tax professionals can't get it right, lawmakers pass legislation they don't even read, Medicare and Social Security are operating disasters. In the midst of all of this people feel they have no control over the government in Washington and that legislators don't listen to them. People want the border CLOSED and no one in Washington seems to be listening. Liberals claim that THEY are the moderate view of the country and that the "majority" of people agree with their views. If the ballot box doesn't show that it's a failure of the process. Conservatives feel that most people agree with them and that the liberals are the extreme fringe, out of touch. Ron Paul draws from all of this. His message is not that the system is broken, but that we have stopped following the system. The biggest thing that is keeping his numbers low right now is that people continue to believe that no matter how much they personally like what he has to say, he "just can't win". If something happens at just the wrong time and people get frustrated enough with the status quo candidates right before election time, or if Ron Paul does well enough in the first few primaries to be perceived as having a real shot, look out...

The Constitution is very easy to understand, with or without a law degree. The "complications" are the thousands (maybe millions) of laws and court cases twist and subvert the Rule of Law to suit a special interest group or individual's desire for money or power.

What Congressman Paul has been doing for the last 3 decades is going straight to the Constitution and testing the government's action against it, instead of looking to legislation as a means of getting money from special interest groups for his next election cycle.

Wiz,

His desire to eventually eliminate those departments actually stems from his desire to follow the constitution. If you review Article 1, Section 8, then Amendment 10, you'll see that there is a specific, limited list of the areas assigned to the Federal legislature. Anything not expressly mentioned there is "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Federally regulating education or energy (or any social issues) is not constitutionally allowed at the federal level.

He does want to eliminate the redundancy and civil rights encroachment by the Dept. of Homeland Security. I looked around and could not find paper or speech where he advocates "abolishing the CIA". There may be one, but I couldn't find it. Based on his other stances, my guess is it would be more accurate to say he'd advocate limiting the CIA to intelligence gathering, as opposed to covert operations and regime change.

Eliminating the IRS would remove around 40% of federal revenue. The federal budget has increased by somewhere around that 40% just since the year 2000. If the federal government stepped back to 2000 spending levels, reduced those departments (eventually to non-existence), and stopped spending nearly $10 billion a month on a world empire, we would not need the IRS.

I appreciate your concern about us being at war, but exactly who are we at war with? When will that undeclared war end? Is there a national leadership that will surrender or be completely wiped out to signify when we can claim victory? If not, we'll *always* be at "war".

Perhaps we can simply go after the specific criminals who took responsibility for the mass murders on 9/11, increase our national security here at home by bringing the troops home, and stop breeding more terrorists by intervening in other regions' ancient internal conflicts. The terrorists will not stop right away, but the easy excuse for their actions will recede.

In the meantime, both rich and poor Americans can keep more of the money they earn. Keeping that money will mean even more if we have the option of a competing fixed-based currency over fiat paper.

Obviously, there will be significant opposition to some of these thoughts on this blog. But that is only what I glean from Ron Paul's position, and I agree with it. Of course the best way to know for sure is to actually read his position papers yourself. They are easy to find. Google: "Ron Paul" issue-name and look for sites like www.house.gov and www.lewrockwell.com where he writes many articles.

Here's another reason not to get too caught up in Ron Paul's followers' enthusiasm.

Rudy Giuliani is the national frontrunner for the Republican nomination by a wide margin; but polls show that the people who support him are unaware of many of his positions on domestic issues. A lot of these issues, like gun ownership, abortion, gay rights, and the role of government, are actually huge wedges with the people who "support" the former mayor's candidacy. In other words, if they really knew where he stood, they'd vote for someone else.

Ron Paul is not the political savior that his supporters believe he is. Yes, he's for bringing the troops home right away. Yes, he's for protecting the Constitution. Does anyone think that's all he stands for? He wants to shut down the Department of Education; the Department of Energy; the CIA; the FBI; Homeland Security; the IRS; etc. I know a lot of people want to get rid of the IRS, go to the so-called Fair Tax, but can we really survive an economic shake-up right now? Especially if half the federal government is turned off at the same time?

We're in the middle of a war right now. Whether the troops come home tomorrow or ten years from now, it's not a good time to blind ourselves by removing the Intelligence community from the picture. How does Ron Paul expect to anticipate, let alone prevent, further terrorist attacks without the FBI or the CIA? How does he expect to shut down the Federal Reserve and put this entire country on the gold standard without causing a recession? How can he put tens, possibly hundreds of thousands of federal employees out of work and expect us to avoid a jobs crisis?

As foreign policy goes, I couldn't agree more with his philosophy. If he wants a job in the State Department, there are few who would disagree on either side, I think. But his domestic policies are more frightening than when Tom Tancredo suggested we threaten to bomb Mecca. You can't run for president while promising to hobble America. Well, apparently, you can; but you can't expect me to support you.

Let me tell you why Ron Paul is an Internet phenomemon. I'm a 65 year old woman who bought a computer in order to play online bridge. During the first Republican debate, I became intrigued by what Dr. Paul was saying. I wanted to hear more. Well, the media wasn't giving him the time of day, so I googled him. And that is that. If the media had been giving him the same coverage as they do Hillary or Romney, I wouldn't have had to do that, Dr. Paul would by now have the name recognition, and he would be leading in the polls. Dr. Paul owes his Internet popularity to the blackout given him by the mainstream media! It's as simple as that!

Please do me a favor and send over one of those Internet techs. I need someone to show me how to download his videos onto a disc.

In a country where runaway debt,a devalued dollar, and unprecedented Executive branch power-grabs are somehow becoming accepted as the norm, I'll gladly support Ron Paul in the primaries.

I disagree with the idea that he's entertaining any idea of running as a third party candidate. I think part of the foundation of his campaign is to bring the Republican party back to the idea of small government. I suspect Paul sees himself as actually being the Republican who is actually the most loyal to Republican principles.

The idea that the government that governs least, governs best is an old, respectable idea. It used to be a Republican idea.

It is a sad reflection of our times that there is really no other candidate that I've heard from who advocates less government.

It's even sadder that a "small government" candidate is automatically branded as eccentric or fringe. Paul isn't the sharpest campaigner in the world, but he has the most appealing message (to me).

Political Nutshell: People who do not read, vote for Giuliani and Clinton. People who read, vote for Biden and Ron Paul.

Freedom is Natural.

Freedom is Good.

How difficult is that to understand?

RON PAUL 2008

dave--"And on Nov 7, he told of the plot. By the 9th, his co-conspirators had been named. But the account I read must be fiction because everyone today knows that torture does not work."

I only said that torture is ineffective as a means of gathering new information. It works fantastically as a means to coerce a "confession."

In the case of Fawkes, miraculously the conspirators named were the exact persons that the king disliked and had already detained or killed.

I also said that if you consider torture to be a legitimate in any circumstance, you are a subhuman, an animal and just as bad as all the other terrorists who use pain as means to an end.

"Ron Paul is a true American & Republican conservative. "

I agree and that is why I cannot support him. But let's be clear, he is a true American because he is a citizen, not because he is a Repub conservative.

PG

Ron Paul is a true American & Republican conservative. He is the only candidate that values the Constitution. Current Republican candidates through their actions are closer aligned politically with either Communist our nazi ideals. Ron Paul is the saviour for American Democracy. If Ron Paul does not win. We will see the the creation of the fourth riche in America.

matthew, it is your "patriotic duty" to own guns? What does gun ownership have to do with patriotism? While I support people's right to own certain firearms, I fail to see how it has anything to do with patriotism.

And I hate to break it to you but if the government wants to come after you and get you, your guns won't save you. You may avoid being taken alive (and if that's the case, then how are you protecting your family), but your guns aren't going to help you get away or scare them off.

A democracy can't survive, nor can it serve its people, if the people don't actively participate. Don't be so paranoid.

PG

The Abortion thing was a sticking point for me but if you let state's decide or the people yeah remeber us? as for gun rights, better to have one and not need it, than need one and not have one. Why can't people see him from an objective view, compare character, vote record, and Military record, some say Mcain and I say he blew it when he caved in to bush in 2000, now he is bomb bomb Iran Mcan't I could go on but why? He is the only credible man or Hillary running.

claudialong, I support Ron Paul 100%. I own several guns and believe it is my patriotic duty. I do not hunt. Civilian ownership of effective small arms is a fundamental human right and is an indispensable protection from oppressive government and foreign invaders. I believe it is my duty as a father to protect my family, my freedom, and my country in the event of an emergency. Good luck relying on friendly policemen, claudia.

http://www.a-human-right.com/
To all who love liberty:

Stay armed, and stay free.
Liberty or death!

Why is it SO surprising that the denizens of DC don't like Ron Paul? I guess he must be the candidate of all those unsophisticated hicks in flyover country.
Just think of the Utopia if the Imperial City folks just ran every aspect of our lives. Why they're just so much more sophisticated, you know!

Maybe people would like to symbolicly blow up the current government which offers us only candidates that continue to promote war, marxism and world government.

I loved the Fawkes reference. And I love RP.

to Claudia Long - the 1st poster
you said
an interesting factoid -- gun ownership in this country is at record highs, while hunting is at record lows...
Well dearie, even Mike Huckabee has said that the 2nd Amendment has NOTHING to do with hunting! Nothing.
When Guiliani supporters declare their candidate to be "good", and Ron Paul supporters to be "bad" , and then resort to force and violence to impose their "goodness" on the "creeps".... that's where the 2nd Amendment comes in. Its called resistance to tyranny and a love of freedom.
And here's another little "factoid for you, Claudia, only a small % of Americans supported the Revolution, most preferred to let George make their decisions.

'proud wrote:

"mark - I like some of his libertarian ideas, too, but he's off the deep end on so many things."

We agree.'
And so do I.

> fuzzewhze wrote:
> "You KNOW that a State government can go
> corrupt to the point you don't like it,
> can't stand it, hate it. You can leave
> that state though."
>
> Maybe *you* can leave your state, but
> not everybody can. Where on earth is a
> minimum-wage-earning fry cook going to
> get the resources to find a job and move
> halfway across the country when his
> state legislature decides to do
> something stupid?

When the Federal government goes corrupt, nobody will be able to leave.

Which is worse?

We have a nutjob in office marching us right into fascism. Just be glad that the Iraq war wasn't won cleanly and efficiently, because if it was, that march would have been accelerated.

There is no perfect system - I do realize that. My principle concern is that people place too much faith in a government they can no longer control - the Federal Government.

We just elected a bunch of Democrats to get us out of Iraq. ARE WE?

Why not? 70% of the population wants us out. There's been no declaration of war.

I know it's hard to accept, but the Federal Government doesn't care about what you think. You put Hillary Clinton or Obama in, and nothing will change. Both are in record supporting an attack against Iran. Iran poses NO THREAT to the United States AT ALL.

And even if they did, I'm not afraid of them and neither should you be afraid of them. If they attacked us, we have a nuclear arsenal. I don't think they are stupid enough to attack us. The USSR wasn't.

> Hey Fuzzy, what if 99% of the people in
> Georgia in 1862 wanted slavery to be
> legal? Oh that's right, they did. Hmm,m
> good thing the federal govt. stepped in
> and put an end to that or I'd be out in
> a cotton field (or corn field) right now.

What if the Federal government decided they wanted slavery in 1862, even if NY had abolished it?

You just got lucky.

The Federal government has done some good things, but it does a lot of bad things.

Don't you know about the Tuskegee Trials?

I'm simply stating that our Federal government could be just as WONDERFUL or as HORRIBLE as any state government.

We should be a country of United STATES. When your government gets horrible, you can vote with your feet, and you should.

> The Constitution (and the federal govt.
> in its application of the Constitution)
> is there to protect the rights of the
> minority from the overreaching desires
> of the majority.

Agreed and if a state starts to violate those rights, it's the responsibilty of the Federal Government to step in.

The Federal government's ONLY role should be to protect the rights of individuals and to use military force to protect the states, nothing else.

The States Rights argument over segregation is crap. The states had no right to do that, they were in violation of the constitution. Seperate but equal would be fine, but it's wasn't equal so it wasn't.

The smartest man I know, incidentally, is an Ethiopian. People that wouldn't hire him because he's black cripple themselves.

I live in Silicon Valley. I'm white. I'm a minority. Most people I work with are Indian. My cubemate is black - he's an even smaller minority here than I am.

But so what? Race is nothing more than a tool of racists. There is no scientific concept of a race. We're human, and that's that. No government has a right to treat of differently based on our genetic makeup and that's spelled out pretty accurately in the constitution today.

fuzzewhze wrote:
"You KNOW that a State government can go corrupt to the point you don't like it, can't stand it, hate it. You can leave that state though."

Maybe *you* can leave your state, but not everybody can. Where on earth is a minimum-wage-earning fry cook going to get the resources to find a job and move halfway across the country when his state legislature decides to do something stupid? You say that it's unfair to expect people to "vote with their feet" on a national level because moving from one country to another is too difficult and too expensive for some. By that same argument, it is also unfair to expect people to "vote with their feet" on a state level.

cali - Your using Washington D.C. (WDC) as "proof" is interesting, simply becasue it so makes mockery of your argument. In 1960, the population of WDC was 763,956. It peaked at 809,000 in 1968. The number of murders in 1960 was 81; in 1968 it was 195. The overall violent crime rate in 1968 was 12,180. WDC was granted self governance by COngress in 1976 and passed a flat out ban on guns that year. The population had falllen to 702,000, there were 235 murders, and 10,399 violent crimes. Dutng subsequent years, the population of WDC shrank and the homicide and violent crime rates increased to a peak of 482 in 1991 (violent crimes: 14,671 and population 598,000). The homicide rate continued at around 400 per year or more and the violent crime rate at around 14,000 to 16,000 until 1998. Then, it abruptly began falling until last years 169...**after** the repeal of the firearm ban in Wasgington D.C. (the year before it was 195; it had fallen to under 200 in 2004 and stayed there ever since). The populatio, today, has shrank to 581,530 and the violent crime rate 8,772.

Now, all of this basically says that there is no relationship whatsoever between firearms, gun control laws, and crime. The D.C. gun ban, the Brady laws, none of these had any effect on violence and homicides. You might better argue that the 2004 presidential election correlates better with the drop in violent crime and homicides.

You can check my figures at two office sites:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_08_dc.html
and
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm

Ron Paul has ideas that may be unconventional, but that to many people is the start of rehauling things that never made sense and never worked well. He's willing to take them on. Other Candidates just go with the flow and tell what you want to hear.

Who will Ron Paul replace to become a first tier Candidate?
----> http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=890

.

"Not necessarily very convincing. Remember DC once being labeled the "murder capitol of the world"? Since then DC had some of the most strict gun control laws and now it's a very safe city." -Cali

Now, I'm on the side of gun control but I reserve the right to cal BS on anything anyone says. Even if I agree with their main point.

Although DC does have stronger gun control laws than the national average, it's arguable that the laws contributed a smaller amount than the massive gentrification and economic renewal in NW DC.

People living below the poverty line and those in the various underground economies (drugs, guns, etc) are far more likely to commit violent crimes than your average young professional. Essentially, more money = less crime. When was the last time someone was murdered in Bethesda or Potomac? Compare that to the last time someone was killed in Baltimore city.

Now this isn't always true, of course. No generalization is. Mayor (now Governor) O'Malley turned Baltimore around by focusing on economic growth in the city. He made it as safe as it's been in the last couple of decades. Mayor Dixon shifted some key policies and things have gotten somewhat worse, but not like it used to be.

It happened this weekend. I live in New York City. My wife and 3 years old daugther were walking on the street. All of a sudden a car started speeding from a parking lot and a guy jumped out from a pizza place and started shooting at the car. And all this was happening in front of my wife and my daughter at 1pm on a busy street. Now a question to gun lovers. What would have happened should everybody around had guns and started shooting? How many people would have killed each other? I considered buying a gun, legally of course. However, I gave up this idea for the following reasons. You should be able to correctly evaluate situation, you should know how to use a gun under stress when innocent people are around you, what if you miss and kill an innocent person. Police officers undergo special trainings and even they make mistakes. As somebody pointed out in a previous post, life in Montana is different from life in New York City. The point is to keep the guns out of the hands of the criminals.

Sooooo, getting back to the topic at hand, I don't see how Ron Paul will garner any significant numbers in the Repub primary. He is an anti-establishment candidate and the way things are stacked these days, only the candidates who have the "blessing" of the party establishment get anywhere. And this goes for the Dem party as well, otherwise Dennis Kucinich would be doing much better.

PG

"And then there's this gem: On January 22, 2007, Paul was the lone member out of 415 voting to oppose a House measure to create a National Archives exhibit on slavery and Reconstruction."

proud: Paul is on the losing end of many votes along the lines of 428-1, because he believes Congress should not be issuing birthday greetings to 108-year-old people and other things like that.

Hey Fuzzy, what if 99% of the people in Georgia in 1862 wanted slavery to be legal? Oh that's right, they did. Hmm,m good thing the federal govt. stepped in and put an end to that or I'd be out in a cotton field (or corn field) right now.

The Constitution (and the federal govt. in its application of the Constitution) is there to protect the rights of the minority from the overreaching desires of the majority.

Now, in regards to Liberals imposing their will on others, I believe it is the Repubs who want to limit who has the right to get married. I believe it is the Repubs who want to tell women what they can and can't do with their bodies. I believe it is the Repubs who have decided that torturing is now OK.

If you are a libertarian, thats fine. But be so because you believe in what Libertarians believe in, not because you don't believe in what you incorrectly believe Liberals are about.

> What good is a federal government if it
> doesn't act to protect and help its own
> citizens. I trust my state government,
> but if I lived in other parts of the
> country (particularly during other
> periods in time), I would have
> absolutely NO trust in the state
> government's ability to protect me and
> my civil rights.
>
> Just because Bush and Co. have destroyed
> our federal government doesn't mean that
> the federal government is uncapable of
> functioning. If I believed that, then
> I'd never be able to trust ANY state or
> local government, particularly those in
> the southern part of the country.

Listen,

What if the FEDERAL government starts acting just like the STATE governments that you don't trust, particularly in the southern part of the country.

Where will you go then?

You KNOW that a State government can go corrupt to the point you don't like it, can't stand it, hate it. You can leave that state though.

What happens when instead of your state government doing this, your FEDERAL government does this. Can you leave it?

When you can vote with your feet and money, your government becomes more responsive. We cannot vote either with our feet NOR our money with it comes to the Federal government. We're captive to it. It was never meant to be this way but expect it to get worse.

Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton are BOTH on record supporting an attack on Iran. Does the majority of Democrats want that? Try to stop them.

Republicans are against Nation Building, but here we are in Iraq, Nation Building.

Republicans are against large Federal government, and GWB has grown it by 30% in 6 years.

Republican are against wasteful spending, and the national debt has nearly doubled since Bush took over.

proud wrote:

"mark - I like some of his libertarian ideas, too, but he's off the deep end on so many things."

We agree.

I'm watching the Situation Room and Wolf just led into break by talking about Paul's "one-day haul" and whether or not it will translate into additional media coverage. He then said they would talk more about that after the break.

Um, excuse me, but if you are covering it, then doesn't that mean he is getting additional media attention? What a moron (and this applies to most MSM as they are all doing the same thing).

> And, Congressman Paul introduced The
> Sanctity of Life Act of 2005, which
> would remove jurisdiction of the Supreme
> Court in cases involving abortion laws
> in individual States.
>
> Yes, the federal government ruling on
> abortion is extra-constitutional and it
> is a state/local issue. If you read the
> constitution, you'll only find 18
> enumerated powers and health rights
> isn't one of them...
>
> Do the liberals who rally behind Paul
> really understand all of his views?

Yes, I do.

I live in California. I'm not worried about abortion being outlawed here. I think my state will make the right decision.

And if Kansas outlaws it? What if 99% of the people of Kansas WANTS to outlaw it? Isn't it their decision, not your decision?

And if you live in Kansas, and they outlaw it, then what? You can move. I have lived in 5 states, and I moved when I didn't like the people and/or the government. Everybody should.

Why do you think Silicon Valley is filled with such diverse people? That's where I am. Nearly all of us left to come here. Lots of Libertarians here and notice we created Google, Yahoo, Sun Microsystems, Oracle, Adobe, Netscape, Atari, Cisco....

Let people do what they want, right OR wrong. What is right for you may not be right for another person.

What could be more Liberal than letting people of like mind congregate and form their own communities?

This is why Republicans call Liberals fascists, they feel that Liberals are trying to impose their will - AND THEY ARE.

Republicans try to do the same thing on Liberals when they are in the Federal government.

Get rid of this ability, and let states decide what they want, and allow people to leave and enter the state at will. We'll be a better nation and we'll all be happier as individuals.

Dear PeixeGato,

You're right. If you believe that the Federal Government should control every aspect of your life from cradle to grave and should be given complete authority to take your money and spend (waste) it however they see fit; if you believe that the Federal Government can do a better job of taking care of us than we can ourselves, then you most certainly should not support Ron Paul.

All of the former Democrats whom I have met that have switched their party to vote for Ron Paul state that they have done so not only because of his position on the Iraq war, but also because they are worried about what the out-of-control government spending and Federal Reserve bank has done to the average citizen's ability to build wealth or support a family, or because they're worried about the erosion of our personal freedoms, or because they see voting for any other candidate out there, Republican or Democrat, as voting for more of the same. HRC, Barak Obama, Giuliani, Romney... they would all continue to propagate the warfare/welfare state that is bankrupting this country.

What good is a federal government if it doesn't act to protect and help its own citizens. I trust my state government, but if I lived in other parts of the country (particularly during other periods in time), I would have absolutely NO trust in the state government's ability to protect me and my civil rights.

Just because Bush and Co. have destroyed our federal government doesn't mean that the federal government is uncapable of functioning. If I believed that, then I'd never be able to trust ANY state or local government, particularly those in the southern part of the country.

Now, getting back to the topic at hand, I believe that many people supporting him are doing so only because he is a Repub who opposes our occupation of Iraq. That was my point.

PG

PG

Colin, I think there's no point arguing. In my mind, there's no question that the Post, overall, is left of center. Most people I know, even most liberals (yes, I have many liberal friends...) agree with that. Sorry you don't.

Are they NY Times? Mother Jones? The Nation? No, they're not that obvious.

Again, their position against PWC's illegal immigration control efforts is absolutely undefendable. As is their opposition of the incumbents pushing that effort (or because they're an R, either way).

mark - I like some of his libertarian ideas, too, but he's off the deep end on so many things. It's the same old absurd notions his supporters cling to like "don't pay your taxes, the IRS has no authority to collect taxes".

None of the Paul worshipers has yet to explain his opposition to legislation that would target online child predators.

And then there's this gem: On January 22, 2007, Paul was the lone member out of 415 voting to oppose a House measure to create a National Archives exhibit on slavery and Reconstruction.

Cali, I think you missed the point of the post. The stats I presented compared Florida's crime rate with the general US rate - the main difference being Florida's expansion of gun owner rights in that year.

If you don't want to use private gun law changes as the proxy for the huge difference between Florida crime rates vs US crime rates, fine - but you need to come to the table with another reasonable cause, then.

proud, Congress has the explicit authority to regulate commerce among the states, lay taxes, and create post roads. Paul's arguments against Congress regulating commerce among the states, or laying taxes, or building and maintaining the Interstate and US Highway systems, or overseeing airport security all are simple policy arguments with no constitutional dimension.

But to the extent that he is a believer in personal liberty, I applaud his efforts.

> Yes, Ron Paul is a "true" Repub in the
> ilk of Reagan and other "old school"
> Repubs. But this is exactly why I don't
> like him and could never vote for him.

I wouldn't vote for Paul at the state or local level, but he's exactly what we need at the Federal Level.

It's just that simple.

The Federal government is out of control with spending and abuse of power - the only remedy is to dramatically reduce it's power and spending.

States can pick up the slack. Don't you trust your state government? Don't like your state government? Vote with your feet and move to another state.

Just TRY to leave the country. You'll find out that's extremely difficult and very expensive.

Oh, my post was in response to the post put up by marcus a few posts up the list.

PG

> He[Paul] has no authority now to seek
> abandonment of the powers given to the
> federal govt.

What powers is Paul seeking to remove from the "federal govt" that the Federal government legally and constitutionally holds?

I was just thinking the same thing about the basis of people's opinions of Ron Paul, only from a different perspective.

As a Democrat, I am amazed at how uninformed many fellow Dems are about this guy. I have talked to many of my fellow Dems who talk about how they would support Ron Paul over HRC, talking about him with dreamy eyes. What they fail to realize is that beyond his opposition to the occupation in Iraq, he is the antithesis to what many Dems are fighting for in this election. Just because he opposes the current administration's foreign policy doesn't make him anything close to a Democrat. And if people really understood where Ron Paul stood on most economic and social issues, he would not be so appealing to so many "independents" either.

We have become so accustomed to Repubs blindly following this administration and rubber stamping anything that it does that we think that any Repubs who oppose them on any issue must be Democrats in Republican clothing.

Yes, Ron Paul is a "true" Repub in the ilk of Reagan and other "old school" Repubs. But this is exactly why I don't like him and could never vote for him.

PG

"If the powers not delegated to the federal government by the constitution are ended by Ron Paul, the states should and will need better representation in the senate."

skefboomer, the problem with that explanation is that Congressman Paul attempted to pass this legislation in the Congress this year, while GWB is in office. By your assessment, he's putting the cart before the legislative horse at the very least, and committing a fraudulent act as an elected Congressman for his Texas constituents at worst. He has no authority now to seek abandonment of the powers given to the federal govt.

Nice try, but your explanation doesn't hold water, like many of the others here.

Now, what about that vote he cast against legislation to help catch online child predators? Don't you think the government has a duty to protect it's citizens agasinst the most heinous criminals?

> fuzzy: just answer this one question: Do
> you believe the Pure Food and Drug Act
> to be unconstitutional?

I believe it to be useless.

I'm willing to break the constitution when it's in the interest of everybody but these are the same jerks that weren't showing up to import docks to check imported food that ended up being poisoned with malamine.

All the Federal government does today is say "don't worry, we've got it covered", as they blow off their job. It's just false security.

If the melamine was in human food, there would be a few thousand people dead instead. We just got lucky - nothing else.

It is amazing to me how uninformed many of you are posting comments in response to the news about Ron Paul's huge fundraising success - much like the MSM puppets who wrote them. If you are going to post criticisms of Ron Paul's ideas, at least do yourself the favor of reading up on them first. You might be surprised how much sense he makes! Please go to www.ronpaullibrary.com to read about his ACTUAL positions on things like The Department of Education, The War on Terror, and The Federal Reserve Bank.

It is likewise stunning to me that people continue to try to portray Ron Paul as a non-republican. Please go to the website below to listen to a speech by Ronald Reagan that sounds eerily similar to Ron Paul's current platform. If Ron Paul is not a true Republican, then neither was Ronald Reagan.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=74JF0Xf6hPY

JD,

"Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. Between 1987 and 1996 ..."

Not necessarily very convincing. Remember DC once being labeled the "murder capitol of the world"? Since then DC had some of the most strict gun control laws and now it's a very safe city.

Also, 1987 I was in high school. I remember listening to someone on the radio predicting how abortion and the aging of those in the age bracket most likely to commit violent crime would mean a decline in violent crime during the following years.

I'm not saying these are definitely cause and effects, but my point is you shouldn't be convinced just based on you statistics.

"Paul is against Federal officers doing security in airports."
Yes the TSA (did you know that these "federal officers" joke about that the TSA stands for Thousands Standing Around?) LOL that agency is a joke. They only check 10% of luggage and I accidentally carried on board my 4 inch pen knike through 4 airports. Noticed it in a pocket of my briefcase when I got home. But they took my toothpaste!! LOL smart bunch those TSA federal officers!

Responding to proudtobeGOP | November 6, 2007 02:31 PM

I wonder if any Paul devotees could explain this....

17th - If the powers not delegated to the federal government by the constitution are ended by Ron Paul, the states should and will need better representation in the senate. This was the very reason that senators were appointed by state legislatures in our original constitution, ensuring that state representation was provided on a longer term basis than the congress (2 years). It was only to reduce state power that the popular election of senators was enacted.

And, Congressman Paul introduced The Sanctity of Life Act of 2005, which would remove jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in cases involving abortion laws in individual States.

Yes, the federal government ruling on abortion is extra-constitutional and it is a state/local issue. If you read the constitution, you'll only find 18 enumerated powers and health rights isn't one of them...

Do the liberals who rally behind Paul really understand all of his views?

I don't know, I'm a constitution supporter, not a liberal...

> As to security, someone here said that
> Paul is against Federal officers doing
> security in airports. That doesn't seem
> like a great idea. I'm also in favor of
> stronger gun control laws or at least
> keeping the ones we have. To allow
> individuals to have M16's with under
> slung grenade launchers seems dangerous.

Hey, I have a suggestion.

How about airlines do their own security?

If this were the case, we could have held airlines responsible for 9/11 since it was their mistake. Of course, some airlines would have their pilots armed - most pilots are ex military men after all. Some may not.

And if 9/11 happened anyhow? Well, it was the airline that let it happen. The victims would hold the airline to account.

Why should there be a corporate shield? If you ran the airline YOU made the policies, it's YOUR responsibility to keep it safe.

The problem is there is not accountability. With great reward comes great risk. Don't want to be held personally liable when a plane comes down? Better not run an airline then.

fuzzy: just answer this one question: Do you believe the Pure Food and Drug Act to be unconstitutional?

> fuzzy's remarks remind me of the
> greatest sports quote ever, uttered by
> former Dallas Cowboy Blaine Nye about
> the performance of one-hit wonder Clint
> Longley in the famous 1974 Thanksgiving
> game against the Redskins:
>
> "The triumph of the uncluttered mind"

I take that as a swipe at me.

People are free to interpret the constitution as they see fit, but there are pretty clear limits to it.

Federal government doesn't have any right to wage a war on drugs.

Federal government doesn't have any right to dictate what your child is taught.

Federal government doesn't have any right to use military personel without a declaration of war.

Federal government doesn't have any right to create social security trust funds then steal from it.

Federal government doesn't have any right to impose a speed limit.

Federal government doesn't have any right to impose federal safety standards on anything.

Now STATE governments do.

It's really not at all complicated. I believe in competition. If state X makes a lot of bad decisions, their citizens will suffer, and they bright ones will move away to other states in search of a better life. If state Y makes good decisions people like, people will move there.

People will suddenly vote with their feet.

Oh, the horror of that! People deciding on their own what system they like or do not like. People allowed to make their own mistakes and own successes.

Hell, maybe I'm totally wrong. Well, I'm not expecting you to pay for my errors.

Maybe you're wrong - do not expect me to pay for your errors.

I don't need somebody saving my from myself, and I really don't need somebody asking me to save them. You are your own responsibility.

"I can see how maybe you prefer government regulation to protect your financial security, but how can Libertarian policies be any more "dangerous" to your personal security than the status quo which allowed 9/11 to happen?"

Posted by: BillinNY | November 6, 2007 04:25 PM

Glad we're more or less agreed on how the government protects my personal investments.

As to security, someone here said that Paul is against Federal officers doing security in airports. That doesn't seem like a great idea. I'm also in favor of stronger gun control laws or at least keeping the ones we have. To allow individuals to have M16's with under slung grenade launchers seems dangerous.

fuzzy do you not understand what the Supreme Court has been doing these past 200 years or so? All those "cases" they hear? Most of them involve some part of the Constitution. Is it your contention that the Justices have been wasting their time, because it's all really clear?

bsimon, I will not repeat the bimetallic or asset standard debate we had here weeks ago. You may recall that Radical Patriot engaged seriously, but many simply flooded the thread with invective.

I will repeat that all must read and comprehend

http://www.constitution.org/mil/embar2nd.htm

A liberal constitutional scholar's unashamed defense of the Second Amendment as granting individual rights.

I threatened a quiz on it previously - now I withdraw the threat and respectfully request that all you wonks and wonkettes read it.

As a footnote, I represented Suzanna Gratia, D.C., before she was elected as Suzanna Hupp, but after she lost her parents to murder at Luby's. She was passionate, smart, and motivated.

> 'The constitution isn't complicated'
>
> LOL. yeah right. that's why we've been
> debating what it means for hundreds of
> years.

For example.... ?

novamatt,
If you think that today's VA GOP is out of step with or shifted to the right of a George Allen or Jim Gilmore, you are whacked. The VA GOP has moved nowhere. What is going on? Larry Sabato would call it the arrogance of power - "headiness of power, and the fateful,
self-destructive arrogance that sooner or later comes from its full exercise." Basically, greater power leads to factionalism and internal strife. It happens to both parties, it's just the R's turn.

fuzzy's remarks remind me of the greatest sports quote ever, uttered by former Dallas Cowboy Blaine Nye about the performance of one-hit wonder Clint Longley in the famous 1974 Thanksgiving game against the Redskins:

"The triumph of the uncluttered mind"

'I find Ron Paul's grasp of the actual document to be weak. I find his ability to use it as some sort of talisman to be remarkably strong.'

that is for damn sure...

'The constitution isn't complicated'

LOL. yeah right. that's why we've been debating what it means for hundreds of years.

> But your point is well taken. The
> Constitution is something to be debated
> among people with years of post
> -bachelors education. The language is
> obtuse and the meanings have been
> interpreted by the courts so much you
> have to have a lot of information to
> have a good grasp on what's going on.
>
> I find Ron Paul's grasp of the actual
> document to be weak. I find his ability
> to use it as some sort of talisman to be
> remarkably strong.

Oh man!

This is why people hate lawyers.

The constitution isn't complicated it's just lawyers spend 8 years learning to not understand it.

'I'd like to say that to HRC.' Oh, PLEASE do. and have an actual gun your hand at the time. It would make my day. I do so enjoy watching the Secret Service when they go batsh*t on somebody.

Jenn2, I really like your posts. I appreciate your taking the time to explain to fuzzy [who does make some good points] why Ron Paul is not the second coming.

What I see here is that Paul --becuase his actual positions are really complicated and difficult to comprehend -- becomes what fred thompson was before he dudded out -- some kind of a blank slate to project your personal vision utopian vision onto.

Hey, I should comment on this as well:

> [People] They're pragmatists. If, for an
> example that I am just making up out of
> the air, we find that people think
> federal protection of endangered species
> is very important and has been
> successful and a good use of taxpayer
> funds, then their opinion isn't going to
> be swayed much by a Constitutional
> argument on federalism.

Here, let me propose a CRAZY idea.

Let me buy land. If I don't develop it, put no structures on it, I don't pay any taxes on it. It's mine though.

This way, a charatible organization, or even an individual, could buy property to turn it into a natural reserve.

But the FEDERAL GOVERMENT won't allow this. Why not?

I got news for you, the Federal Government doesn't care about doing good things, they care about pretending to do go things so they can get money from you. PETA does this. PETA doesn't run a single shelter in all the world. HSUS is the same. The Humane Society of the US, HSUS - doesn't run a single shelter and they aren't affiliated with your local humane society.

The Red Cross is like this. 95% of all money sent to UNICEF goes to "administrative costs" - so basically a bunch of innocent little kids collecting dimes and nickels are doing it to make some immoral piece of dirty wealthy.

Your
Federal
Government
Is
No
Different.

Get it through your head. Al Capone did nice things too, it's PR and that's it.

You want to cut down on gasolene usage and stop global warming? Stop having wars in the Middle East to keep the price artificially low then all of a sudden, people will start driving these:

http://blog.scifi.com/tech/pics/aptera_2.jpg

It gets 200 MPG.

JasonL this is a strange fear ..." I do believe that Libertarian policies would be dangerous to my personal and financial security"

I can see how maybe you prefer government regulation to protect your financial security, but how can Libertarian policies be any more "dangerous" to your personal security than the status quo which allowed 9/11 to happen?

"What do you think the percentage of Americans who even know what the Commerce Clause is, much less have an opinion about it, is? Take out those of us with a JD and it's probably less than one percent." -Jenn

Those of us with MPA's or MPP's have a bit of that goodness going for us, too.

But your point is well taken. The Constitution is something to be debated among people with years of post-bachelors education. The language is obtuse and the meanings have been interpreted by the courts so much you have to have a lot of information to have a good grasp on what's going on.

I find Ron Paul's grasp of the actual document to be weak. I find his ability to use it as some sort of talisman to be remarkably strong.

"

Well, since none of the resident Paulites have stepped forward to explain his legiwslative proposal to abolish the 17th Amendment, how about explaining this...

Paul voted against legislation to help catch online child predators, saying "I have a personal belief that the responsibility of raising kids, educating kids and training kids is up to the parents and not the state. Once the state gets involved, it becomes too arbitrary."

If none of the Paul followers here has the cojones to defend this position from your candidate, then I would ask that you stop filling this thread with your useless campaign slogans from his website."

Bravo, proud. Taking the bushel basket off the entire Paul record and exposing it to the light is a good thing.

Chris, you might check RonPaulGraphs.com for reliable stats before speaking. First, support for New Hampshire comes from New Hampshire-- which is in fact the -highest- state per capita in donations to Ron Paul: 1 out of every 3200 Free Staters is a Ron Paul DONOR (donors.html). Second, Paul is not a "longshot", which is a betting term. Bettors at Intrade have ranked Paul in third place with 9%-10% odds, above Thompson and McCain for five days now (intrade_price_rep.html), and I believe sportsbook.com has him at 5-to-1 (17% odds). Please correct your article.

> Paul's position is not about eliminating
> waste, fraud, overspending, no-bid
> contracts, etc. Those are all things
> people can get behind.

Bwhahaha!

Of course it is!

I've been a follower of Paul for quite some time. I suggest you look over his voting record.

* He's never voted for an unbalanced budget.
* I've seen him rip Bernake a new rectum.
* He votes against farm subsidies, because he believes they don't help the people they claim to help.

The list goes on and on. The guy won't even participate in the Congressional retirement plan for god sakes.

http://www.bradblog.com/Images/RonPaul_DontSteal.jpg

Boy, you guys just don't have a clue about Ron Paul do you? There's absolutely no excuse. In front of your is the most powerful communication device ever created by man.

Start using it and don't believe the rhetoric, check out voting records. Paul explains quite plainly why he supports or doesn't support a bill.

> Every candidate will have something to
> say about that that will have broad
> popular support. But Paul's position is
> for a dramatic restructuring of the
> areas in which the federal government
> legislates, REGARDLESS of whether or not
> that legislation has been effective or
> popular.

Hello?

The Federal government had a HORSE JUDGE in charge of the Federal EMERGENCY Management Agency.

They bankrupted Social Security.

This is what a 20 coin looked like in 1920:

http://www.confiscation-of-gold.com/coins_gold_20Dollar_1927%20copy.jpg

That's worth $800 today because of the inflation the Federal government caused.

A dime from 1963 is worth $1.00, a penny from 1963 would be equivalent to a dime today.

Social Security has run a surplus for almost it's entire existence, where has the surplus gone? Well, if you have read the Social Security Trust Fund Act, the government can't borrow from it - it's illegal, but the government did borrow from it, and owes trillions of dollars back to it, without interest of course.

I wouldn't trust the Federal government to clean my toilet.

What, precisely, has the Federal government done right?

> Good or bad, it all has to go because
> his interpretation of the Constitution
> says so.

"Good or bad" - bwhahahaha! It's all been bad?

What's good about it? Do tell me, because I'm sure eager to know what this incompetent government has done right!

I mean, Iraq was under sanctions for a DECADE and President Nutjob can't even finish the job there, and he wants to go to Iran next.

If you want me to consider the GOOD, you better spell out what GOOD this bunch of thieves and morons have done with the 3 TRILLION dollars they get a year.

What good?

You spell it out to me, because I'm really slow and cannot see it.

Fuzzy, I wasn't talking about the Fed. I was responding to a quote taken directly from Ron Pauls website saying that the Constitution would