As much as I despise the liberal agenda...

Neo-cons suck hard. Honestly, I don't know which group of Neo Cons I hate more: the group from 2008 who tried to laugh a guy like Paul off the stage at the debates because they were admittedly all radically different than him, or the current field who have stolen a few of his ideas about economic liberty only to re-regurgitate a perverse version of them, and combine those ideas with the worst possible stances on personal liberty and foreign policy imaginable... At least the first group seemed to be openly hawkish and 100% disinterested in dealing with fiscal or monetary policy-- where this group is clearly lying about both. Ahh well, liars are liars, and Ron Paul is the most honest man American politics has ever seen-- whether people agree with his ideas and worldview or not, at least people know where he really stands.

Ron Paul really is only one guy radically different than everyone else out there, including the president, and Dr. Paul IS growing more electable by the day-- the cold shoulder treatment by the media really backfired on them, and I think he is really only starting to benefit from it. Sadly, as the economy worsens, more people are going to want to listen to him-- and he'll be the first person to wish he was 100% wrong-- but on matters of the economy, he's dead on. Everything that is happening currently was predicted by him years ago, and I feel that he has the best approach for getting things straightened out, and fuck, the guy even talks about wanting PEACE, and actually promoting a policy of LESS VIOLENCE TO ACHIEVE IT. How about instead of trying to achieve PEACE through more fighting and violence, we take a more direct approach? How can anyone see an issue with that? How can't that issue trump every other one automatically-- especially for principled liberals? The United States has not been at war for a mere 10 years as so many people wrongfully and forgetfully believe... It's been at war steadily in foreign countries since World War II, and has actually been internally at war for almost nearly as long-- and he wants to end it ALL. Whether he will be a success at it or not remains to be seen-- we just need to make steps in the right direction first and declare that there is a need to ending painful, wasteful, and expensive-in-every-way-imaginable war. Personally, I think he's got great pull in achieving this since as Commander in Chief he could order troops home from everywhere. He can also veto war-related spending bills as well as veto resolutions promoting any kind of foreign entanglement. As far as ending the "war on drugs" and any other war against the American people, his attorney general could back way off, unlike Holder or anyone else in this position, and let the states do their thing. These are very workable solutions to very HUGE problems, all of which are executive powers that are simply never exercised because we have yet to have a president that actually works for the people. I also think a Ron Paul presidencey would promote a watchful eye on the Fed, the backroom dealing and secret bailouts would have to suffer a tremendous blow.

It really is time for people to stop doubting, and start doing. The guy is electable if we want him to be... I've been on the bandwagon since late 07, and I can't tell you how much the movement behind this guy has grown... If the past X number of presidents have only been marginally different, with their overall philosophies failing us, then why not just get behind the honest guy with some interesting and different ideas?

I also am a big Ron Paul fan... but, I would like to say:

Ron Paul would support Bachmann, Perry, or Romney (should they win the nomination).... against Obama.

There's a reason for that. He's a Republican. I like what Ron Paul stands for, but (like Ron Paul) I'm not clueless enough to think voting for the opposing party is going to help his cause.

At this point, I'd prefer any Republican candidate to Obama.

I have to admit, I don't know all that much about Ron Paul, or hear very much about him, and I live in Texas!!! I don't know whether or not I would like him or agree with his policies, but I don't like the fact that he doesn't get a fair shake (media attention-wise) simply because he isn't sexy enough. And I mean that figuratively, I'm sure Dr. Paul is a very sexy man who can shake his ass all night long, I just mean that it would appear he has to act outrageous and spout a bunch of stupid shit like Perry, Palin and Bachmann for the media to pay any attention to him.

In the election coverage I've seen, Sarah Palin gets more media attention than Ron Paul, and she's not even in the fucking race. She could get on Twitter and talk about her weekend and the news is all over it, meanwhile I have very little idea of who or what Ron Paul is, other than that he's a Congressman from Texas. Even the local news here in Texas barely talks about him, they're more concerned with Perry.

I guess I'll have to do my own research (probably better that way anyhow) because unless he starts ranting and raving the news isn't interested in talking about him.

inlet13 wrote:

I also am a big Ron Paul fan... but, I would like to say:

Ron Paul would support Bachmann, Perry, or Romney (should they win the nomination).... against Obama.

no, he would not.

unsung wrote:

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

I also am a big Ron Paul fan... but, I would like to say:

Ron Paul would support Bachmann, Perry, or Romney (should they win the nomination).... against Obama.

no, he would not.

Agreed, not a chance.

Also agreed. Seems to me Mr. Paul would rather run as an independent but knows doing so automatically puts him out of the running. Too bad because he really is more of an independent than a strict party line guy.

If Michelle Bachmann were the President... in charge of the launch codes for our nuclear arsenal... the city who would have the highest fear of a U.S. nuclear first strike would be San Francisco.

I almost forgot to ask...
What is the 'Liberal Agenda'... I must've missed that memo.

FiveB247x wrote:

Exactly.. it's alot easier to generalize a group by saying they have an agenda instead of simply discussing ideas and beliefs.

Cosmo wrote:

I almost forgot to ask...
What is the 'Liberal Agenda'... I must've missed that memo.

I suppose it could be considered the belief that the federal government not only can but that they should solve societal issues like poverty, healthcare costs, etc...

Cosmo wrote:

I almost forgot to ask...
What is the 'Liberal Agenda'... I must've missed that memo.

This is true, they don't have a plan, that much is clear.

Cosmo wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

I suppose it could be considered the belief that the federal government not only can but that they should solve societal issues like poverty, healthcare costs, etc...

...
Just asking... but, does that fall under the 'Promote the General Welfare' clause? Without the term 'Welfare' used to describe the general use of the term in today's environment. More like, looking over the greater good of ALL American citizens. Because, for example, the increasing costs of Health Care is affecting ALL of us... not just the ones without insurance.
...
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

if those things were to be covered by the general welfare statement, they could have just stopped there and not needed any other parts of the constitution. That isn't necessarily a clause as it is a general statement of purpose of the government. if it was meant that the government could ever increase the size of itself in the name of the "general welfare of the people", the enumerated and implied powers of the constitution would not have been necessary. You wouldn't need anything else. You wouldn't need any limits on the executive branch, the legislative branch, or the judicial branch.
Because the power the government has to "promote the general welfare" of the people is spelled out inside the constitution. and anything that exceeds those enumerated powers is and should be declared unconstitutional.

For anyone interested, a pretty good book about the importance of the division of government and states' rights should look into the book "Power Divided is Power Checked" by Jason Lewis. Pretty good read about the constitution and the federal limits that are supposed to exist. Good read, especially for people who don't have a great grasp of the constitution and the powers it grants our government.