[Janos]

The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.

The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court--

(1) shall not adjudicate--

(A) any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion;

(B) any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or

(C) any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation; and

(2) shall not rely on any judicial decision involving any issue referred to in paragraph (1).

[Sushi]

the reason people are constantly disappointed by presidents is because the american president has very little power to actually push through a legislative agenda; this is how the system is designed

ronpaul would be no different, possibly actually even less effective

Seriously. It's enough to make me despair: sometimes I think the American public doesn't want a republic. They want a King. Trying to keep track of more than one Important Politician is obviously too much work.

That said, I'd vote for RP in a general election over any of the other main candidates. I don't particularly like any of them, but Paul at least raises issues that are important to me and ignored by everyone else. I'd love to see those issues taken more seriously.

[Mikes]

Atleast he has a better sense of what is going on in the world then Rick Santorum...

So has toasted bread... should we nominate it ?

[Grizzly]

Atleast he has a better sense of what is going on in the world then Rick Santorum...

So has toasted bread... should we nominate it ?

I think you guys just ought to vote Obama again.

[Bob-san]

Atleast he has a better sense of what is going on in the world then Rick Santorum...

So has toasted bread... should we nominate it ?

I think you guys just ought to vote Obama again.

And be happy with your new pro-war Democratic party.

[Nuke]

war is an american institution. why do so many people want to put a stop to it?

[MP-Ryan]

And be happy with your new pro-war Democratic party.

Up until about 1970, the Democrats were always the party of foreign interventionism.  The Republicans were primarily isolationist, really up until the Bush Bunch.

[Bob-san]

And be happy with your new pro-war Democratic party.

Up until about 1970, the Democrats were always the party of foreign interventionism.  The Republicans were primarily isolationist, really up until the Bush Bunch.

Except, there are many degrees in foreign interventionism. Ultimately, my problem with foreign interventions is two-fold. The first is that our military actions are subsidized only by the US taxpayer and our debtors. We aren't compensated for the costs of the missions, much less the loss of our soldiers' lives. The second is that there is no such thing as a free lunch--those that want a free (blood & money) revolution via the American military, NATO, the UN, or any other organization... they don't really own their own revolution or the results. That also means that, if or when the regime fails, they'll blame outsiders for interfering.

[Janos]

the reason people are constantly disappointed by presidents is because the american president has very little power to actually push through a legislative agenda; this is how the system is designed

ronpaul would be no different, possibly actually even less effective

Seriously. It's enough to make me despair: sometimes I think the American public doesn't want a republic. They want a King. Trying to keep track of more than one Important Politician is obviously too much work.

That said, I'd vote for RP in a general election over any of the other main candidates. I don't particularly like any of them, but Paul at least raises issues that are important to me and ignored by everyone else. I'd love to see those issues taken more seriously.

What are these issues? Fleet-footed negroes? Crushing the separation of church and state? Ripping off constitutional protections and replacing them with pseudo-feudal loonie bull****? Voting against government to stop dealing with Janjaweed militias? Posing with Stormfront co-founders? Issuing own riders to bills, then voting "No" even though the bill is going to pass?

Moving back to gold currency? Hating on abortion? Removal of state bureaus that, for example, make sure tens of thousands people don't die of poisoned milk? Blocking governmental family planning?

Capital punishment? Banning all public schooling?

So what are the important things you value so much over all of this? If you think everyone's similar, you can go ahead and point at some Democratic candidate's part where he wants to abolish constitutional protection on federal level.

[Wobble73]

Every time I see this guys name I think of RuPaul

[JCDNWarrior]

the reason people are constantly disappointed by presidents is because the american president has very little power to actually push through a legislative agenda; this is how the system is designed

ronpaul would be no different, possibly actually even less effective

Seriously. It's enough to make me despair: sometimes I think the American public doesn't want a republic. They want a King. Trying to keep track of more than one Important Politician is obviously too much work.

That said, I'd vote for RP in a general election over any of the other main candidates. I don't particularly like any of them, but Paul at least raises issues that are important to me and ignored by everyone else. I'd love to see those issues taken more seriously.

What are these issues? Fleet-footed negroes? Crushing the separation of church and state? Ripping off constitutional protections and replacing them with pseudo-feudal loonie bull****? Voting against government to stop dealing with Janjaweed militias? Posing with Stormfront co-founders? Issuing own riders to bills, then voting "No" even though the bill is going to pass?

Moving back to gold currency? Hating on abortion? Removal of state bureaus that, for example, make sure tens of thousands people don't die of poisoned milk? Blocking governmental family planning?

Capital punishment? Banning all public schooling?

So what are the important things you value so much over all of this? If you think everyone's similar, you can go ahead and point at some Democratic candidate's part where he wants to abolish constitutional protection on federal level.

You come across as being very angry (as opposed to calm and calculated) as well as scared what will happen if there's no monolithic state to watch over you. I don't think you understand the ideas that Ron Paul and the Founding Fathers try to bring forth, the points they try to make to preserve the rights and freedom of the people.
Freedom is also all about being responsible for yourself and your actions, to not have anyone else deciding for you what you can and cannot do with your own life, that you don't need to constantly defend your actions to a state that tries too hard to keep you safe, taking away liberty in the process.

It's easy to dismiss a person and discredit one in your mind, and that's also your own personal right, but I wouldn't suggest claiming such ideas as fact without incontrovertible facts. Dealing in absolutes like  "Banning all public schooling" shows that you're not fully aware of what impact the Department of Education has on the quality of education, and that you can have public schooling without such a bureaucracy.

Lastly, you can be sure the mainstream media would be right on top of it if any of what you said about Ron Paul's ideas or plans were true, since it seems they already picked the GOP candidate for the people (Romney) yet they're forced to treat Ron Paul with more and more respect. For this reason you may need to revisit your statements by researching more, asking for clarification, put your mind in the position of 'what if I was running for president, what would I do?', that kind of thing.

[General Battuta]

You come across as being very angry, as well as scared what will happen if there's no monolithic state to watch over you.

i touch the shining tip of the interceptor missile

Freedom is also all about being responsible for yourself and your actions, to not have anyone else deciding for you what you can and cannot do with your own life, that you don't need to constantly defend your actions to a state that tries too hard to keep you safe, taking away liberty in the process.

oh okay

For this reason you may need to revisit your statements by researching more, asking for clarification, put your mind in the position of 'what if I was running for president, what would I do?', that kind of thing.

it's so good to have this useful advice on these difficult topics. if only we had considered researching, asking for clarification, and pretending we were running for president, we too would understand what freedom is, ron paul, et cetera

[JCDNWarrior]

It's that I often see that people have misconceptions about people or subjects, myself included in the past, that because of hearing a certain person say something it automatically becomes truth instead of finding out what was actually meant by a statement or the reason for responding a certain way. That's why, in my opinion, it's important to review it, place yourself in a person's or position's shoes so that you can understand them better.

[Mikes]

Freedom is also all about being responsible for yourself and your actions, to not have anyone else deciding for you what you can and cannot do with your own life, that you don't need to constantly defend your actions to a state that tries too hard to keep you safe, taking away liberty in the process.

Yeah we re seeing how that worked out after decades of massive deregulation of the financial markets.
The economy at this point is still pretty much a nuclear reactor on the verge of going critical... and you would leave it to its own devices, really? Because that worked so well in the past? Because the people involved acted so "responsibly" that they repeatedly threathen to crash the whole system in the pursuit of personal and corporate greed? So "responsibly" that common sense and long term thinking gets outright ignored in favor of the short term buck?

Ultimately the state has certain responsibilities and functions in a free market democracy. If the state fails to provide those functions then you won t have your free market democracy for long.

Capitalism without moderating influences and limiting frameworks will ultimately always gravitate towards an accumulation of capital/wealth on the top that, if left unchecked, would result in the rise of a de facto Aristocracy.

[Mars]

It's that I often see that people have misconceptions about people or subjects, myself included in the past, that because of hearing a certain person say something it automatically becomes truth instead of finding out what was actually meant by a statement or the reason for responding a certain way. That's why, in my opinion, it's important to review it, place yourself in a person's or position's shoes so that you can understand them better.

You live in a population that is unnaturally large and a collapse of society would result in a large percentage of people dying out. That is a fact. I don't think Ron Paul would actually cause this if he became president, although he might try, but I'm sick of hearing about this 'personal responsibility' non-sense that Randians keep talking about.

(People will do what people will do, but it's still in decision makers and really everyone's best interests to keep the population from exploding all over the place)

Now really, I'm in favor of religious institutions having to pay their dues because really, they get off quite easy in the United States, and the whole western world. There is also the undeniable fact that everyone is better off if the population is kept comfortably stable, which is by far a more sensible argument.

Really James [Mars] - Have you ever even heard of personal responsibility? Let alone accountability...

It's that attitude that doesn't make any sense. The whole purpose of society is that every individual, or nearly every individual, ends up better off than if they lived in a non-society.

[NGTM-1R]

You come across as being very angry

Anyone who isn't angry confronted with screed in support of Ron Paul is either Nuke, not very good at this whole predictable human behavior thing, or irredeemably dense.

Only one of these can be corrected.

[Mikes]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=kQES16MmFNI#!

Made me smile. Still... Randian idiocy will propably never die out. It s compelling and preys on the minds of intellectuals when they are young and vulnerable,
telling all the "right things" to someone who is at the most insecure stage of their life.

It s kinda like Religion that way... /thread. Oups.

[Janos]

Lastly, you can be sure the mainstream media would be right on top of it if any of what you said about Ron Paul's ideas or plans were true, since it seems they already picked the GOP candidate for the people (Romney) yet they're forced to treat Ron Paul with more and more respect. For this reason you may need to revisit your statements by researching more, asking for clarification, put your mind in the position of 'what if I was running for president, what would I do?', that kind of thing.

So you have absolutely no idea of the candidate you support! Congratulations! You have no basic knowledge of Ron Paul. Here, let me help you by digging out these random snippets about Ron Paul. BTW this is not even touching on many of his issues and I couldn't be bothered to dig up all of the racists crap from 1980s, but here you go. Let me quote DAT LIST for u

Fleet-footed negroes?

  A bad source, this one only has Newt Gingrich in it

Crushing the separation of church and state?

Source

Ripping off constitutional protections and replacing them with pseudo-feudal loonie bull****?

Read the bill!

Voting against government to stop dealing with Janjaweed militias?

Read the results

Posing with Stormfront co-founders?

Oh look

Issuing own riders to bills, then voting "No" even though the bill is going to pass?

Seriously lolz

Moving back to gold currency?

A simple search "ron paul gold standard" would probably have helped you there

Hating on abortion?

Oh it's a bad source, it's only his own campaign site

Removal of state bureaus that, for example, make sure tens of thousands people don't die of poisoned milk?

All right, this was a mistake. Ron Paul does not specifically hate FDA. If only I could put my finger on why this article by Ron Paul still feels somewhat suspicious. What could it be?

Blocking governmental family planning?

Yeah.

Capital punishment?

All right. Ron Paul only opposes federal death penalty. He's for states to decide it!

Banning all public schooling?

This of course depends on the timeline. In 1990s Paul was still very much into banning public schooling. http://www.ronpaularchive.com/1998/02/national-testing-averted-but-education-woes-still-unresolved/ Now he only wants to remove federal control, public student loans, and eliminate Department of Education http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2011/10/17/ron-paul-1-trillion-cut-plan-targets-five-cabinet-departments

And finally:

You come across as being very angry (as opposed to calm and calculated) as well as scared what will happen if there's no monolithic state to watch over you. I don't think you understand the ideas that Ron Paul and the Founding Fathers try to bring forth, the points they try to make to preserve the rights and freedom of the people.
Freedom is also all about being responsible for yourself and your actions, to not have anyone else deciding for you what you can and cannot do with your own life, that you don't need to constantly defend your actions to a state that tries too hard to keep you safe, taking away liberty in the process.

So, it has been proven that you do not know anything your candidate of choice actually votes for and believes. You can still act condescending towards someone who has dug up Ron Pauls antics from late 2011. You manage to blow hot air rhetoric and completely evade questions. You cannot pinpoint any single political position of Paul's you agree with, but you can pretty much claim me a liar.

Do us and yourself a favour and read about your political candidate the next time you decide to support him. And don't waltz in here and assume everyone is as ignorant as you are.

Thank you. Anything else?

[Mikes]

Do us and yourself a favour and read about your political candidate the next time you decide to support him. And don't waltz in here and assume everyone is as ignorant as you are.

Thank you. Anything else?

Frankly sometimes I have to wonder how much of Ron Pauls popularity comes from a couple of youtube videos that are flying around where he simply appears to be able to make a strong argument against *something* or *someone* while many of his political opponents  fail at formulating any coherent or logical argument at all.

I.e. kinda like this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVyhIGkusnI

So for some people it might be a matter of voting for the guy who "looks good while making an argument on youtube"... rather than the other guy(s) who are providing involuntary youtube comedy? lol.

[MP-Ryan]

Frankly sometimes I have to wonder how much of Ron Pauls popularity comes from a couple of youtube videos that are flying around where he simply appears to be able to make a strong argument against *something* or *someone* while many of his political opponents  fail at formulating any coherent or logical argument at all.

I.e. kinda like this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVyhIGkusnI

So for some people it might be a matter of voting for the guy who "looks good while making an argument on youtube"... rather than the other guy(s) who are providing involuntary youtube comedy? lol.

You raise a good point.  Paul is a very coherent speaker that sticks to his ideas (be they good or bat**** insane).  His foreign policy stance in particular tends to appeal to a lot of the younger generation  as he is the only Republican candidate in recent memory to acknowledge that part of the reason for a generalized hatred of the United States in the Middle East comes from the fact that the United States (among others) has been continuously ****ing with their political leadership for the last 60+ years.  It's not a groundbreaking idea, but it gains him traction because the rest of the Republican bunch has a really distorted view of world history and international relations.

Like NGTM-1R said, Paul has a few good ideas and the rest are looney-tunes, but those few give him political traction when he talks about them, particularly because he appears to be the only candidate with a coherent argument that does not sound like a babbling baboon in the debates.