Ron Paul .. the only True Constitutional Candidate

[spec4]

FWIW, I'm sitting here listening to WLS Chicago. The newscaster made a comment about Ron Paul and at the end he said Ron Paul is 75. As I posted before, I believe the Obama controlled media will beat the age issue to death. To counter this, what comes to my mind is that early on he should pick a VP candidate who is a lot younger. Paco, appreciate you list and I do understand freedom and know enough about economics to be dangerous. Most of all I understand that we could become a pure socialist nation if Obama is re-elected. I subscribe to the National Review and I must say, some of the articles in there are very scary.

 

[jayhawk]

Most of all I understand that we could become a pure socialist nation if Obama is re-elected.

 

[Expat]

Oh they will mention his age every chance they get. I expect that we will start hearing more about Reagan having Alzheimers in his last years as well.

 

[teddy12b]

Ron Paul is old, but his audience is young. They made age an issue with McCain and I think it hurt him. With Paul I think it'll be different and if people take the time to understand what he's saying and understand his actual record they'll vote for him.

I just finished his book Liberty Defined. I have to admit it was like he was speaking a foreign language. The concepts of liberty that he was talking about just seemed so foreign to me, but so fascinating as well. The whole time while going through his book I just kept fantasizing and wondering, could we really live like this? I like Ron Paul, and until I see something better he's got my vote.

As far as that debate goes, the only other one I'd consider would be Herman Cain and that's only if something happens to Paul. The only guys in the debate, Romney and the rest of them are just the same old $h!t republicans that have gotten us into the mess we're in now. I'll take credit in part of the blaim for voting for those republicans in the past, but I certainly won't do it again. I want to help Paul win!

 

[kwatters]

I voted for Ron Paul in '88. I haven't voted for a Republican since the late '70s - just another den of vipers. Paul is the only man who could get me to vote Republican again.

so you voted for Obama????

 

[Paco Bedejo]

I voted for Ron Paul in '88. I haven't voted for a Republican since the late '70s - just another den of vipers. Paul is the only man who could get me to vote Republican again.

so you voted for Obama????

I'm not sure if you realize it, but there were options besides NObama or McSame.

From: United States presidential election, 2008 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[mrjarrell]

so you voted for Obama????

There were 3 presidential candidates on the Indiana ballot last go around. McCain, Obama and Bob Barr. He had other choices, including none of the above or a write in.

 

[cowboywitek]

wow, this guy actually makes sense. that is until he said regarding gay marrige, "sure they can do whatever they want, and call it whatever they want." yikes doesnt sound to good.
TW

 

[teddy12b]

wow, this guy actually makes sense. that is until he said regarding gay marrige, "sure they can do whatever they want, and call it whatever they want." yikes doesnt sound to good.
TW

That's actually one area where I really agree with him on. What the heck do I care if gay people want to spend their lives together and share their belongings. I don't have to put my nose into their business and agree or disagree with anything they do and they don't have any part of how I live my life. Live and let live, until it infringes on my rights.

I really like how Ron Paul wants to put the power of such decisions back in the hands of States. The whole idea of a one size fits all set of rules that applies nation wide just doesn't make sense. Let states decide on how they educate, if the support abortion, if they support gay marrage, gun restrictions and so on. Let people vote with their feet and go live where they feel comfortable living wherever that is.

States are more than competant enough to take care of themselves, without having to support the extra overhead of DC. I wish I had a dollar every time I got a dumb look from a teacher after asking them why they need someone in washington who's never taught kids to tell them how to do their job. There's just no reason to be sending tax money to DC and having to apply for it back through grants for schools. It's BS and we need to cut out the middleman who provides no value.

What I like about Ron Paul is that he doesn't want to tell us how to live, and I don't think his wife is going to be in the spotlight telling us what we can and can't eat either.

 

[misconfig]

wow, this guy actually makes sense. that is until he said regarding gay marrige, "sure they can do whatever they want, and call it whatever they want." yikes doesnt sound to good.
TW

Don't agree with gay marriage? Don't marry a dude, problem solved...

 

[Ramen]

wow, this guy actually makes sense. that is until he said regarding gay marrige, "sure they can do whatever they want, and call it whatever they want." yikes doesnt sound to good.
TW

I am assuming you are looking at the area through a religious (Christian) perspective. I apologize if you aren't and my response is off base. I realize you could be saying that this position will make him unelectable in a Republican Primary, or something else entirely.

Anyway, from a Biblical standpoint I agree with his stance. What the State (in any form) declares to be "marriage" is of no concern to me. I will still be married even if the State dissolves.

I believe it is Biblical to not allow the State to dictate the terms of my faith.

 

[teddy12b]

Don't agree with gay marriage? Don't marry a dude, problem solved...

^THIS

It really is that simple. If you don't like it, don't do it.

 

[Paco Bedejo]

wow, this guy actually makes sense. that is until he said regarding gay marrige, "sure they can do whatever they want, and call it whatever they want." yikes doesnt sound to good.
TW

The state has no business regulating religious ceremonies. AFAIK, any consenting person may enter into any non-slavery contract with any other consenting person(s). Cohabitation, property rights, w/ever. How intercourse factors in, I have no idea. If 5 people want a consensual, polygamous relationship...so be it. It does no harm to anyone else. If you're concerned about the tax code...stop using it to encourage heterosexual marriage. The government shouldn't be in the business of social engineering.

I kindly ask you to assess your motives for trying to control other people. I did so during the 2008 presidential race, largely because of Ron Paul's campaign. I used to question why anyone would need 500 rounds of ammo...now I consider that a day's good practice & carry a firearm everywhere I go. Though I've never used an unprescribed drug, I'm adamantly against the war on drugs. Liberty is a scary thing, but once it clicks home, you'll change most of your beliefs.

 

[teddy12b]

Though I've never used an unprescribed drug, I'm adamantly against the war on drugs.

This is another area where I really like what Ron Paul has to say. Why are we putting people in jail for smoking something that grew up out of the ground? I like the idea of making the drugs legal. It's not going to end the war on drugs, but it'll sure as heck have an impact on how many families of border agents get a letter saying that their family member was killed over trying to keep a couple pounds of pot off the streets. I really like RP's way of throwing it back in the mediators face and laughing about how nobody in the room is going to just to run out and buy a bunch of drugs as soon as it becomes legal.

If somebody wants to smoke pot or something else and they're not hurting me then what the heck do I care. I think you guys would really like listening to RP's book liberty defined. I've got a political man crush on him, just don't tell my wife.

 

[Bummer]

so you voted for Obama????

Sadly it would appear that it will come as a bit of a shock that there are parties other than the Big Two who simply buy the elections. Since the late seventies I've voted Libertarian. By write in at first.

In the beginning I couldn't believe the Republicans could offer an actor (artful liar) on the heels of a bad liar. In this last election the Republicans offered John "cash and vacations for influence" McCain. There was no way I could vote for a man who'd already sold his influence once to a banker and gotten away with it.

It's still going to be difficult to vote for Paul as a Republican.

 

[Bummer]

I'm not sure if you realize it, but there were options besides NObama or McSame.

From: United States presidential election, 2008 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yep. I voted for Bob Barr this last time around. (I think I understand that you weren't aiming that at me.)

 

[kickbacked]

While i like ron pauls small government campaign, i cant say i agree with his opinion of legalizing cocaine, heroin, and prostituion. I also disagree with allowing the states to decide about gay marriage. We are one country, if one state allows it i think all should and vice versa. This is really making me question him. Maybe someone can help me see the light?

 

[Paco Bedejo]

I think you guys would really like listening to RP's book liberty defined.

Been reading it via the Kindle app on my phone during my lunch breaks. I'm 37% through it @ "Foreign Aid".

Yep. I voted for Bob Barr this last time around. (I think I understand that you weren't aiming that at me.)

As did I...I knew Obama was going to mop up. I mean; racial-bonus, offering free stuff, inciting class-warfare, and charismatic -vs- old white guy who's been playing the "war-hero" card for 3+ decades, pushes corporatism every chance he gets, has the facial expressions of a puppet, and can't even rally his strong supporters? I voted for Paul in the primary, but figured I'd stand with the Libertarians in an attempt to get them some public financing in the Nov election... Alas, the dichotomy got us again.

 

[rambone]

While i like ron pauls small government campaign, i cant say i agree with his opinion of legalizing cocaine, heroin, and prostituion. I also disagree with allowing the states to decide about gay marriage. We are one country, if one state allows it i think all should and vice versa. This is really making me question him. Maybe someone can help me see the light?

"Let the states decide" is exactly the right answer.

We are supposed to be a Union of sovereign states. We are not supposed to be controlled heavily from the top; from an all-powerful central government. Give the power back to the states, and you don't have to worry about things like Obamacare, national gun control laws, Centralized banking, Department of Education, etc. All these national bureaucracies and regulators must go. We are not supposed to be ruled by the White House.

Otherwise, ask yourself: what is the point of having States and Governors, if the Feds are going to make all our decisions for us? Yes-- marriage and drug laws should decided at a state level, at most. Personally I would get all levels of government out of the matter.

 

[jsgolfman]

"Let the states decide" is exactly the right answer.

We are supposed to be a Union of sovereign states. We are not supposed to be controlled heavily from the top; from an all-powerful central government. Give the power back to the states, and you don't have to worry about things like Obamacare, national gun control laws, Centralized banking, Department of Education, etc. All these national bureaucracies and regulators must go. We are not supposed to be ruled by the White House.

Otherwise, ask yourself: what is the point of having States and Governors, if the Feds are going to make all our decisions for us? Yes-- marriage and drug laws should decided at a state level, at most. Personally I would get all levels of government out of the matter.

Some people don't realize Unite States is plural, not singular.