Ron Paul will visit Detroit and Dearborn

[antongast]

Puzzle me this: Why would Ron Paul make a campaign stop in Highland Park, Michigan, which is 93% black and a place he absolutely no chance at winning?

Answer: Ron Paul is not a racist.

Ron Paul may or may not be personally bigoted against racial minorities [[and the location of one of his campaign stops is hardly conclusive evidence one way or the other), but that question is missing the whole point. The real issue with him is that his policies would create a world in which racial minorities are substantially worse off, and in which the range of opportunities available to them is substantially curtailed.

If you're interested, here is an excellent, on-point analysis of Paul's worldview and its real-world implications, written by an economics Ph.D student at U of M.

An ideal libertarian society would leave the vast majority of people feeling profoundly constrained in many ways. This is because the freedom of the individual can be curtailed not only by the government, but by a large variety of intermediate powers like work bosses, neighborhood associations, self-organized ethnic movements, organized religions, tough violent men, or social conventions. In a society such as ours, where the government maintains a nominal monopoly on the use of physical violence, there is plenty of room for people to be oppressed by such intermediate powers, whom I call "local bullies."

The modern American libertarian ideology does not deal with the issue of local bullies. In the world envisioned by Nozick, Hayek, Rand, and other foundational thinkers of the movement, there are only two levels to society - the government [[the "big bully") and the individual. If your freedom is not being taken away by the biggest bully that exists, your freedom is not being taken away at all.

...

Not surprisingly, this gigantic loophole has made modern American libertarianism the favorite philosophy of a vast array of local bullies, who want to keep the big bully [[government) off their backs so they can bully to their hearts' content. The curtailment of government legitimacy, in the name of "liberty," allows abusive bosses to abuse workers, racists to curtail opportunities for minorities, polluters to pollute without cost, religious groups to make religious minorities feel excluded, etc. In theory, libertarianism is about the freedom of the individual, but in practice it is often about the freedom of local bullies to bully. It's a "don't tattle to the teacher" ideology.

[oladub]

antongast, Your U of M student doesn't seem to understand the federal system which allows and constitutionally encourages a restrained federal government while allowing states to do all sorts of things not delegated to the federal government. [[10th Amendment). Ron Paul isn't a pure libertarian [[anarchist) anyway as he is grounded by the Constitution. The polar opposite of libertarianism is authoritarianism. That's not good either.

Evanescence meets Ron Paul video

Aimee Allen's Ron paul Theme Song

In Dearborn today, Ron Paul filled a 1,200 seat auditorium and hundreds were turned away. In East Lansing, Ron Paul filled a 4,000 seat venue; his largest campaign stop crowd to date. Fifty minute speeches without teleprompters.


Meanwhile President Obama is trying to reduce vet benefits for active duty and retired military.

WHOSE FRINGE NOW?

[BrushStart]

Ron Paul may or may not be personally bigoted against racial minorities [[and the location of one of his campaign stops is hardly conclusive evidence one way or the other), but that question is missing the whole point. The real issue with him is that his policies would create a world in which racial minorities are substantially worse off, and in which the range of opportunities available to them is substantially curtailed.

Look, I've been supporting Ron Paul for quite a long time. I've vetted him thoroughly through examining hundreds of writings and speeches dating back several decades. Not once have I found any evidence that Ron Paul is a racist. There are plenty of allegations by his detractors, but their attacks are phony and baseless. If Paul were a racist, I would dropped him a long time ago.

The fact that Paul made a campaign stop in the heart of Detroit's inner city, with a population of overwhelming democrat African Americans is a strong sign that the man is not a racist. How many other national politicians have actually gone into the city's neighborhoods? They don't. They stay downtown. Paul is a man who believes in individuals. He is by far the most color-blind politician in America. But, he is not politically correct, which makes him a target for those who desire to keep the racial divide alive, the bigots bigoted, and all of the people suppressed, controlled, and dependent.

If you're interested, here is an excellent, on-point analysis of Paul's worldview and its real-world implications, written by an economics Ph.D student at U of M.

This is definitely the first time I've heard the "freedom to be a bully" argument. What a load of crap! People will be bullies under any system, including our current form of government. Right now, the bullies are the corporate cronies, i.e. insurance companies, defense contractors, bankers, and lobbyists. All Paul wants to do is make sure that the "bullies" cannot get in bed with government and force their fist down your throat using the law.

Honestly, what is the alternative? Make the government protect you from Jehovah's Witness? I know they can be pushy, but give me a break... And, how would you propose the government protect you? They would have to restrain someone else and take away their liberty to make you happy. The problem you don't see is that whenever the government picks a side, someone gets screwed. Sometimes that person is you; sometimes it's somebody else. Either way it is a form of control and it is wrong. Government should stay out of our lives except to protect us from harm.

I don't know of any "local bullies" who support Ron Paul so that they can bully the "little guy." Virtually all of Paul's supporters are the little guy. This is because they don't have the financial leverage to control politicians and policies the way that the true bullies do all day long. I don't need protection from local bullies, I need protection from the oppressive plutocracy that is literally running this country into the ground. Those guilty are Republican and Democrat alike. Barack Obama is no different than George W. Bush. There's been no change. We were lied to and now only have the illusion of making a choice. Romney = Obama. Neither one gives a shit about you. -George Carlin.

If you're so afraid of what you describe as local bullies, let me give you some advice:

1. Your work boss is an abusive jerk? Quit, form a union, or go on strike. Libertarians have no problems with unions unless they are forced membership, which is wrong. You should be free to do as you like, which includes the freedom to form associations, assemble, and protest, i.e. form a union. Ron Paul would protect those rights.

2. Your neighborhood association is restrictive about landscaping? Don't join it. Government can't protect you from being a fool. If you buy a house in a subdivision, read the damn covenants.

3. The pesky Catholics won't stop asking you to convert? Tell them to piss off! It's not the government's job to police all the religions and play babysitter.

[firstandten]

antongast, Your U of M student doesn't seem to understand the federal system which allows and constitutionally encourages a restrained federal government while allowing states to do all sorts of things not delegated to the federal government. [[10th Amendment). Ron Paul isn't a pure libertarian [[anarchist) anyway as he is grounded by the Constitution. The polar opposite of libertarianism is authoritarianism. That's not good either.

Evanescence meets Ron Paul video

Aimee Allen's Ron paul Theme Song

In Dearborn today, Ron Paul filled a 1,200 seat auditorium and hundreds were turned away. In East Lansing, Ron Paul filled a 4,000 seat venue; his largest campaign stop crowd to date. Fifty minute speeches without teleprompters.


Meanwhile President Obama is trying to reduce vet benefits for active duty and retired military.

WHOSE FRINGE NOW?

I don't understand how this answer addresses Antongast post which the U of M guy is giving whats probably an unintended consequence of libertarian policy which is the freedom of the local bullies to abuse your rights.

[BrushStart]

His [[obvious) racism seems like a sideshow, to me [[I'm black, BTW). What I find more damning about Paul is that he seems to not recognize the reality of how society works in a highly advanced modern world of billions of peoples. You'd have to go back very close to the dawn of civilization to have his worldview work. Either that, or his ideas could only work in very small populations like an Amish village. You're not going to run a nation of 310 million people with computers, and satellites and railroads and freeways and complex waterworks and, well, the list goes on...on a Ron Paul worldview. Sorry.

Yeah, he's ridiculously consistent and when he's on he's on, but it's like a broken clock being correct twice a day. The other twenty-two hours of the day, he's crazy as f%ck, excuse my French. He is simultaneously both the most sensible and the most insane major Republican candidate, and, well, that should tell you something.

So, what is the reality of how a "highly advanced modern society with billions of peoples" works? I guess if you disagree with Ron Paul, you think it should work something like it does today:

1. The economy should be controlled by a bunch of global elites with unlimited borrowing power on the backs of working Americans, and the people's representatives in Congress have ZERO control over the elite's piggy bank, the Federal Reserve.

2. A foreign policy that is planned and executed by defense contractors and oil companies that results in war and death for no other reason than to line the pockets of the elites.

3. A financial system that is rigged to make global elites richer at the cost of American home values and retirement accounts. Not to forget destroying the value of every dollar the people have saved during their lifetimes.

4. Fear mongering and war propaganda to convince the public that the entire world hates them for their freedom, while ironically, the government takes those very freedoms away in leaps and bounds.

5. A nontransparent government that is controlled by elites and lobbyists whose ultimate plan for the nation is unknown to us.

6. A rigged 2-party system that consistently forces the same lying politicians down our throats who will protect the establishment and keep the people stupid and dependent while stripping away our Constitution and the American dream.

Remember, that it is the people that give the government its power to govern. This is a Republic!

[BrushStart]

Ron Paul supporters are so cute. They own the internet and nothing else, but pretend as if they rule the world. Well, back to Dungeons & Dragons with you guys. Maybe, when you neo-Birchers drop your conspiracy theorizing, you'll be able to sit at the adults' table for discussion.

Yeah, the only reason he can't win is because he's being smeared as a racist. Poor Ron Paul. If you could only see how far I'm rolling my eyes. This man was unelectable before the media started paying attention to his newsletters and writings, and he's just as unelectable now. For as bad as Paul can be [[outside of his lucid moments), his supporters are the very. worst. thing. about him, hands down.

The guy down on the corner wearing a shower cap and bathrobe has his own moments of lucidity, too.

More of the same childish "Paul is unelectable" garbage. If you want to criticize Paul on his positions, I'd be happy to debate those with you, but denigrating someone simply because Fox News and MSNBC do not find him popular is not worthy of a deeper response.

[BrushStart]

[antongast]

If Paul were a racist, I would dropped him a long time ago.

I don't know if this logical fallacy has a name, but if it doesn't, it should.

He is by far the most color-blind politician in America.

"Color-blind" and "not racist" are not at all the same thing.

I don't need protection from local bullies

How nice for you.

If you're so afraid of what you describe as local bullies, let me give you some advice:

1. Your work boss is an abusive jerk? Quit, form a union, or go on strike. Libertarians have no problems with unions unless they are forced membership, which is wrong. You should be free to do as you like, which includes the freedom to form associations, assemble, and protest, i.e. form a union. Ron Paul would protect those rights.

2. Your neighborhood association is restrictive about landscaping? Don't join it. Government can't protect you from being a fool. If you buy a house in a subdivision, read the damn covenants.

3. The pesky Catholics won't stop asking you to convert? Tell them to piss off! It's not the government's job to police all the religions and play babysitter.

Did you read this part of the post I linked?

In a perfect libertarian world, it is therefore possible for rich people to buy all the beaches and charge admission fees to whomever they want [[or simply ban anyone they choose). In a libertarian world, a self-organized cartel of white people can, under certain conditions, get together and effectively prohibit black people from being able to go out to dinner in their own city. In a libertarian world, a corporate boss can use the threat of unemployment to force you into accepting unsafe working conditions. In other words, the local bullies are free to revoke the freedoms of individuals, using methods more subtle than overt violent coercion.

Such a world wouldn't feel incredibly free to the people in it. Sure, you could get together with friends and pool your money to buy a little patch of beach. Sure, you could move to a less racist city. Sure, you could quit and find another job. But doing any of these things requires paying large transaction costs. As a result you would feel much less free.

[Hypestyles]

Too much of the GOP base is over the top with aggressive foreign policy. I don't see him getting anywhere with that alone.. for today's hardliner- GOP voter, "Big government" for them never includes reconsidering the expanse [[and expense) of the military..

[Dexlin]

More of the same childish "Paul is unelectable" garbage. If you want to criticize Paul on his positions, I'd be happy to debate those with you, but denigrating someone simply because Fox News and MSNBC do not find him popular is not worthy of a deeper response.

Your posts are exactly why I don't like the guy. His true believing supporters, you included, spam threads. You guys try way too hard. This fierce protection of the guy kind of speaks to how incredibly flawed he is. He's not a leader. He's just someone that spouts truths between insanity everyonce in awhile, and you guys glom until him. It's sad, really.

I like Paul for one reason, and it's that he drives the GOP crazy, but that speaks less to his ideology than it does to how depraved the Republican Party has become. So, I hope Crazy Uncle Ron keeps getting stronger and stronger. Both party's may have failed, but the GOP needs a creative destruction like no other and Paul helps in that rending.

[oladub]

Drexlin, I empathize with you for not having a candidate you can be enthusiastic about. Please watch the video on post #32. You claim he "spouts truths between insanity everyonce in awhile" . The video goes on for almost six minutes. Exactly which statements were insane? It seems, to me, that the insanity was and is found in the Bush/Obama policies. Ron Paul's unfulfilled prediction is that all the borrowing and printing will eventually lead to a high rate of inflation. In the end though you do give a good rationalization for Democrats and anyone else voting for Ron Paul. He will shake up and change the direction of the Republican Party. Look at his supporters; they are young while the neocons are old. Not a bad teleprompter free speech either.

*****

[[How Does It Feel At The End Of The Line @ Ron Paul Rally In Hudsonville Michigan? -Raise volume for Polka ) Hudsonville?

*****

Great endorsement even quoting and comparing Dr. Martin Luther King with Dr. Ron Paul 2/24/11

"The Arab American News, however, sees Dr. Paul's refreshing, forthright foreign policy philosophy as one of his greatest strengths at a time when the specter of a potentially catastrophic war looms over festering, misunderstood and misreported conflicts in the Middle East. His positions are perhaps the best hope for even a remotely balanced policy in the troubled region that we've seen in decades."

"But Paul's consistent voice and unwavering commitment to restoring American ideals at a time when telling the truth to power has indeed become a revolutionary act makes him a voice worthy of our support in this Tuesday's Michigan primary election. With so few dynamic, true public servants in Washington like Paul in this increasingly fascist era of corporations-as-people, we must support those that remain with all of our political fervor going forward."

http://www.arabamericannews.com/news...n&article=5325

[Wesley Mouch]

Ron Paul may or may not be personally bigoted against racial minorities [[and the location of one of his campaign stops is hardly conclusive evidence one way or the other), but that question is missing the whole point. The real issue with him is that his policies would create a world in which racial minorities are substantially worse off, and in which the range of opportunities available to them is substantially curtailed.

If you're interested, here is an excellent, on-point analysis of Paul's worldview and its real-world implications, written by an economics Ph.D student at U of M.


...

I'm a social libertarian -- and I think this point on 'bullying' is spot on. [[And that's coming from one who thinks this bit about 'bullying' in schools is absurd.)

Pure Randian libertarianism is much too much in my book.

The logic however of 'enjoy the f***ing you're getting now because its better than the f***ing you'll get by the bullies is a weak argument.

I think we are over-regulated now. That doesn't mean no regulation.

I think Unions are too powerful in certain areas. That doesn't mean unions aren't necessary.

There's a large middle of the road out there.

While I'm ranting -- I don't care what Paul think. So what if he said some racist things a decade ago. What matter is what he does today. Thought police begone.

[noise]

And today he is anti-abortion, anti-Planned Parenthood, evolution disbeliever, and a global warming denier. Why should I give any of his other ideas any thought?

[antongast]

The logic however of 'enjoy the f***ing you're getting now because its better than the f***ing you'll get by the bullies is a weak argument.

I never said I was enjoying it, just that I think Ron Paul is badly misdiagnosing the problem and proposing solutions that are completely wrong and backward.

[laphoque]

I don't know if this logical fallacy has a name, but if it doesn't, it should.

Did I hear logic?!
Let's look at this.

Premise 1: If Paul is a racist then I [will] drop him.
Premise 2: I did not drop him. [[Implied from would that you have not dropped him as of yet).
Conclusion: Therefore, Paul is not a racist.

P => D
~D
Q.E.D ~P

This is actually a basic rule of inference called Modus Tollens and is the opposite of a fallacy.

[maxx]

Puzzle me this: Why would Ron Paul make a campaign stop in Highland Park, Michigan, which is 93% black and a place he absolutely no chance at winning?

Answer: Ron Paul is not a racist.

Maybe he thinks he might get a couple more seconds of TV coverage.

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...um-in-Dearborn
Paul took the stage and briefly addressed the issue of getting people out of poverty.

"It is not easy," he said. "I wish I could come in and wave a magic wand and correct all the problems whether they are local or national."

Pres. Obama was able to keep a lot of people out of poverty by loaning money to the auto industry. Paul would be just what we don't need now: a president who feels impotent to do anything about the economy.

[oladub]

And today he is anti-abortion, anti-Planned Parenthood, evolution disbeliever, and a global warming denier. Why should I give any of his other ideas any thought?

Because he does not think the federal government should regulate abortion, gay marriage, drug use, prostitution and other social push button issues. Those decisions are up to states. He is personally anti-abortion if that is what you mean. Here are his 1 minute worth of personal comments on the subject. For myself, I like a guy like that and who feels the same way about the people Obama blew up in Libya and elsewhere. States can also support planned parenthood and so can you if you write them a check.

The reason you should give his other ideas some thoughts are because Obama and the other Republican candidates support the ongoing wars, antagonizing Iran, expanding the police state, running the country further into debt, they all support NAFTA, Wall street bailouts, corporatism, and other things that are making you poorer and endangering everyone in this country.

[noise]

Because he does not think the federal government should regulate abortion, gay marriage, drug use, prostitution and other social push button issues. Those decisions are up to states. He is personally anti-abortion if that is what you mean. Here are his 1 minute worth of personal comments on the subject. For myself, I like a guy like that and who feels the same way about the people Obama blew up in Libya and elsewhere. States can also support planned parenthood and so can you if you write them a check.

The reason you should give his other ideas some thoughts are because Obama and the other Republican candidates support the ongoing wars, antagonizing Iran, expanding the police state, running the country further into debt, they all support NAFTA, Wall street bailouts, corporatism, and other things that are making you poorer and endangering everyone in this country.

And I disagree with that idea. I like the idea of a free country, not a bunch of individual mini-countries called "states". Whites in these borders, blacks in those borders, liberals over there...

Ron Paul wouldn't make anything better, and would likely make it worse, but since he will NEVER come close to the presidency, the point is moot.

[BrushStart]

And I disagree with that idea. I like the idea of a free country, not a bunch of individual mini-countries called "states". Whites in these borders, blacks in those borders, liberals over there...

Ron Paul wouldn't make anything better, and would likely make it worse, but since he will NEVER come close to the presidency, the point is moot.

What you describe as "mini-countries" is called FEDERALISM. It is our form of government as it was adopted in the Constitution 200+ years ago. This is not Ron Paul's personal opinion, he is obliged to give such powers back to the states because he took an oath to uphold the Constitution. Of course, if you don't like this and feel passionate about it, you have the option to: [[1) campaign to change the Constitution, [[2) defect and renounce your citizenship to become a citizen in another nation, or [[3) you can just live with it.

The federal government should have no authority to do most of the things they do. Let me explain it to you:

Over the past century, federal power [[and influence into state affairs) has grown enormously. This has occurred through federal legislation and a doctrine known as "preemption," whereby the federal government passes a law to either usurp or prevent state laws dealing with the same issue. However, the federal government's power could not have expanded in such leaps and bounds without the assistance of the US Supreme Court.

Article 1 of the Constitution includes what is known as the "Commerce Clause", which states that Congress has the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” The Supreme Court has interpreted this clause in such a way that effectively gives Congress wide latitude to regulate many, many types of local activity. See Wickard v. Filburn [[1942).

Under this quite incredible interpretation of the Commerce Clause, Congress has been granted carte blanche authority to regulate all local activities that have even a trivial or insignificant connection to interstate commerce. Today, the Commerce Clause is used as the mechanism to support the Constitutionality of virtually all federal drug laws, firearm laws, economic regulations, and other federal laws that are not specifically enumerated to Congress in the Constitution.

There can be no question that this gross expansion of Congressional power was not intended or anticipated by the founding fathers, including Alexander Hamilton, who otherwise supported a strong central government. Let's not forget that the 10th Amendment to Constitution was added as a safeguard to protect state sovereignty. The 10th Amendment provides that any powers that are not enumerated in the Constitution are reserved for the states. Traditionally, those powers are summed up as the state's power to "protect the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens."

As one can see, the federal government's intrusion into state sovereignty is one that was not intended by Constitution, nor one that should be welcomed. If it were intended, then there would have been no need to maintain individual states, but rather simply unify as one nation under one set of laws. Each state has its own identity and should be allowed to determine such issues at the local level.

To bring this full-circle, the federal government in our system as it is designed has no authority to regulate one's personal life. In fact, the Constitution EXPLICITLY FORBIDS IT as such power is RESERVED to the states under the TENTH AMENDMENT.

[BrushStart]

Maybe he thinks he might get a couple more seconds of TV coverage.

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...um-in-Dearborn
Paul took the stage and briefly addressed the issue of getting people out of poverty.

"It is not easy," he said. "I wish I could come in and wave a magic wand and correct all the problems whether they are local or national."

Pres. Obama was able to keep a lot of people out of poverty by loaning money to the auto industry. Paul would be just what we don't need now: a president who feels impotent to do anything about the economy.

President Obama has done nothing but keep us in poverty. He is a WARFARE STATE president, spending TRILLIONS of dollars to bomb and invade nations like a globetrotting crusader. To accomplish this, he has BORROWED TRILLIONS and YOU AND I must pay the bill for this.

President Obama gave HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS to the WALL STREET CRONIES that destroyed our economy and plundered our wealth. He is in bed with the global elite and couldn't give a shit about Americans any more than GWB did.

President Obama signed the NDAA to allow the government to violate your Constitutional rights without consequence. He would have signed SOPA and PIPA too so that the government could regulate the internet if Google hadn't thrown a fit. He does not care about the Constitution or individual liberties. Every time he has a choice, he sides with the GLOBAL ELITES.

President Obama signed into law the absolute worst healthcare plan the world has ever seen. Instead of actual Universal Healthcare [[which, I could live with), he masterminded a federal law that forces EVERYONE to buy insurance from a rotten insurance company, whose best interest is better served by people dying than receiving treatment. HE SIDED WITH THE INSURANCE ELITES INSTEAD OF THE PEOPLE. This is the worst of both worlds as every citizen becomes a forced customer of an insurance company, and once they are signed up, the insurance company has no interest in paying for treatment because IT IS AGAINST THE LAW TO GET OUT OF THE SYSTEM. This is the exact same plan Mitt Romney instituted in Massachusetts.

The cat is out of the bag!

[noise]

What you describe as "mini-countries" is called FEDERALISM. It is our form of government as it was adopted in the Constitution 200+ years ago. This is not Ron Paul's personal opinion, he is obliged to give such powers back to the states because he took an oath to uphold the Constitution. Of course, if you don't like this and feel passionate about it, you have the option to: [[1) campaign to change the Constitution, [[2) defect and renounce your citizenship to become a citizen in another nation, or [[3) you can just live with it.

The federal government should have no authority to do most of the things they do. Let me explain it to you:

Over the past century, federal power [[and influence into state affairs) has grown enormously. This has occurred through federal legislation and a doctrine known as "preemption," whereby the federal government passes a law to either usurp or prevent state laws dealing with the same issue. However, the federal government's power could not have expanded in such leaps and bounds without the assistance of the US Supreme Court.

Article 1 of the Constitution includes what is known as the "Commerce Clause", which states that Congress has the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” The Supreme Court has interpreted this clause in such a way that effectively gives Congress wide latitude to regulate many, many types of local activity. See Wickard v. Filburn [[1942).

Under this quite incredible interpretation of the Commerce Clause, Congress has been granted carte blanche authority to regulate all local activities that have even a trivial or insignificant connection to interstate commerce. Today, the Commerce Clause is used as the mechanism to support the Constitutionality of virtually all federal drug laws, firearm laws, economic regulations, and other federal laws that are not specifically enumerated to Congress in the Constitution.

There can be no question that this gross expansion of Congressional power was not intended or anticipated by the founding fathers, including Alexander Hamilton, who otherwise supported a strong central government. Let's not forget that the 10th Amendment to Constitution was added as a safeguard to protect state sovereignty. The 10th Amendment provides that any powers that are not enumerated in the Constitution are reserved for the states. Traditionally, those powers are summed up as the state's power to "protect the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens."

As one can see, the federal government's intrusion into state sovereignty is one that was not intended by Constitution, nor one that should be welcomed. If it were intended, then there would have been no need to maintain individual states, but rather simply unify as one nation under one set of laws. Each state has its own identity and should be allowed to determine such issues at the local level.

To bring this full-circle, the federal government in our system as it is designed has no authority to regulate one's personal life. In fact, the Constitution EXPLICITLY FORBIDS IT as such power is RESERVED to the states under the TENTH AMENDMENT.

So Ron Paul is the status quo? It sounds to me like you have the problem, not me. My America has made these a national issue. You don't see Ron Paul winning anything, do you?

As mentioned earlier, the Ron Paul supporters are an amusing bunch, if not slightly scary. That was quite a rant defending a lone politician as the only one with an accurate [[in your opinion, only) view of the Constitution. I suppose for the rest of us, it's comforting to know such a small percentage agree.

[Occurrence]

Your posts are exactly why I don't like the guy. His true believing supporters, you included, spam threads. You guys try way too hard. This fierce protection of the guy kind of speaks to how incredibly flawed he is. He's not a leader. He's just someone that spouts truths between insanity everyonce in awhile, and you guys glom until him. It's sad, really..

You Ron Paul haters never actually attack his view points, his voting record, or his policies, you just attack the people who support him. So what is your point? Who do you feel is a better candidate and why?

[Occurrence]

Ron Paul wouldn't make anything better, and would likely make it worse, but since he will NEVER come close to the presidency, the point is moot.

Last I checked, our deficit is still increasing at a significant rate. How is that "getting better" in your opinion?

[Occurrence]

So Ron Paul is the status quo? It sounds to me like you have the problem, not me. My America has made these a national issue. You don't see Ron Paul winning anything, do you?

As mentioned earlier, the Ron Paul supporters are an amusing bunch, if not slightly scary. That was quite a rant defending a lone politician as the only one with an accurate [[in your opinion, only) view of the Constitution. I suppose for the rest of us, it's comforting to know such a small percentage agree.

What is your counter argument?

Please explain how what he said was off base, epically his cited example of Wickard v. Filburn.

[BrushStart]

So Ron Paul is the status quo? It sounds to me like you have the problem, not me. My America has made these a national issue. You don't see Ron Paul winning anything, do you?

As mentioned earlier, the Ron Paul supporters are an amusing bunch, if not slightly scary. That was quite a rant defending a lone politician as the only one with an accurate [[in your opinion, only) view of the Constitution. I suppose for the rest of us, it's comforting to know such a small percentage agree.

Haha. The current "status quo" is a gross deviation from the principles America was founded on. A vast majority of people have a poor understanding of history and the media establishment has done an excellent job masking this nation's decline.

When you examine the real numbers, i.e. the national debt, deficit spending increases, the debasing of the dollar as the world's reserve currency, and other economic fundamentals, we are screwed. Seriously, even if the sheeple would wake up, it is probably already too late. Might as well elect Robomney because I cannot imagine a way out of what we have done.

My advice to you, is to enjoy this fleeting moment of relative prosperity, because it is based on a lie. The money is not real. The government taxed Americans until they squealed. When the government could tax no more, it borrowed to the hilt. When the world's banks refused to lend the government money, the government turned to lending it to themselves [[printing money). When money has no anchor to preserve its value, it becomes worthless in the eyes of the marketplace. When money becomes worthless in the eyes of the marketplace, hyperinflation occurs. When hyperinflation occurs, the fiat monetary system collapses. When the fiat monetary system collapses, the world economy implodes and the rule of law becomes overridden by opportunistic tyranny.

The folks who believe that this course we are on is sustainable are sorely mistaken. We are Pompeii before Vesuvius. We are the Titanic before the iceberg. Keep celebrating. Keep shuffling the deck chairs. Hell, at this point there may be no way out.