What do you think of Ron Paul?

[Pope Joan]

I wish he were young enough to be electable.

[Farnhamia]

I wish he were young enough to be electable.

That would be even worse. I understand the absurdities Ron Paul believes coming from someone his age but in someone young they would be appalling.

[Sigoynere]

Ron Paul's the best choice out of the GOP. Too bad he's also the one the media leaves in the black...

[Farnhamia]

Ron Paul's the best choice out of the GOP. Too bad he's also the one the media leaves in the black...

As a Democrat, I hope they nominate him. Paul-Perry ... damn, no, can't have both candidates from the same state ... Paul-Cain 2012!

[Revolutopia]

Ron Paul's the best choice out of the GOP. Too bad he's also the one the media leaves in the black...

As a Democrat, I hope they nominate him. Paul-Perry ... damn, no, can't have both candidates from the same state ... Paul-Cain 2012!

Paul-Bachaman would be better.


Moreover, there is the amusing fact that she was more fiscally responsible then him last year in that while he was sucking on the government's teat with earmarks she at least had the principles not to sponsor any.

[GraySoap]

I'd fornicate his brains out if he wasn't a proper Christian man.

Also, vote for him in anyway that I possibly could. Ron Paul/Gary Johnson preferably.

[Israheil]

The Zionist lobby will prevent him from being elected

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162- ... our-forum/

[UNA]

As a Democrat, I hope they nominate him. Paul-Perry ... damn, no, can't have both candidates from the same state ... Paul-Cain 2012!

Paul-Bachaman would be better.


Moreover, there is the amusing fact that she was more fiscally responsible then him last year in that while he was sucking on the government's teat with earmarks she at least had the principles not to sponsor any.

Earmarks don't increase spending, they merely allocate them. Earmarks have been given a bad name by the executive, because if it's not earmarked, then the federal agencies get to decide where the money goes instead of Congress.

[Simon Cowell of the RR]

Ron Paul's the best choice out of the GOP. Too bad he's also the one the media leaves in the black...

It's an ebil conspiracy by massive global conglomerates to keep his genius out of the White House.
...
Actually, it is because he does not have a large fan base. It is policy to provide airtime in proportion to support. No matter how loud and crazy y'all are, you are still a tiny electorate.

[Jedi8246]

I'd fornicate his brains out if he wasn't a proper Christian man.

Also, vote for him in anyway that I possibly could. Ron Paul/Gary Johnson preferably.

Ron Paul/Gary Johnson!!! Amen to that!! With them leading the executive branch, Washington's proper role could hopefully restored.

[Grave_n_idle]

I'd fornicate his brains out if he wasn't a proper Christian man.

Also, vote for him in anyway that I possibly could. Ron Paul/Gary Johnson preferably.

Ron Paul/Gary Johnson!!! Amen to that!! With them leading the executive branch, Washington's proper role could hopefully restored.

Washington is fulfilling it's 'proper role'. The federalists won because America was a shithole sliding into oblivion in 1787. It was bankrupt, weak, and incapable of defending itself, or even conducting diplomacy, on the world stage. The 'proper role' of Washington is to stop anarchy and greed from taking us there again.

[Ifreann]

Ron Paul/Gary Johnson!!! Amen to that!! With them leading the executive branch, Washington's proper role could hopefully restored.

Washington is fulfilling it's 'proper role'. The federalists won because America was a shithole sliding into oblivion in 1787. It was bankrupt, weak, and incapable of defending itself, or even conducting diplomacy, on the world stage. The 'proper role' of Washington is to stop anarchy and greed from taking us there again.

That's all well and good, but if anarchy doesn't break out soon, what am I meant to do with all this gold I've been stockpiling?

[Grave_n_idle]

Washington is fulfilling it's 'proper role'. The federalists won because America was a shithole sliding into oblivion in 1787. It was bankrupt, weak, and incapable of defending itself, or even conducting diplomacy, on the world stage. The 'proper role' of Washington is to stop anarchy and greed from taking us there again.

That's all well and good, but if anarchy doesn't break out soon, what am I meant to do with all this gold I've been stockpiling?

Eat it.

*nods*

And the beauty of it is, since you can't digest it, it's a never-ending food supply. After you wash it.

[Jedi8246]

Ron Paul/Gary Johnson!!! Amen to that!! With them leading the executive branch, Washington's proper role could hopefully restored.

Washington is fulfilling it's 'proper role'. The federalists won because America was a shithole sliding into oblivion in 1787. It was bankrupt, weak, and incapable of defending itself, or even conducting diplomacy, on the world stage. The 'proper role' of Washington is to stop anarchy and greed from taking us there again.

I can only laugh as you blatantly ignore history. The federalists haven't won, and why you pick 1787 I don't know. The Constitution was beginning to be ratified that year. 1787 was the start of rise to power. Because we followed the checks and balances in our Constitution and played our proper role. We emerged as a world power due to this. It wasn't until the 20th century when more and more big government programs emerged that our country took it's fall. We had the best education system that was the envy of the world, until the Department of Education was established.

Washington as it is today, it is taking us there again. Why? Because most of them are power and money hungry bureaucrats whose only focus anymore is to impose government in our lives. This is leading us back into the shithole you've described.

-Our country is on the road to bankruptcy again. Just look at our debt.
-We are weak to the point where half the world hates us for trying to extend the American empire. The Middle East for one.
-We don't conduct diplomacy anymore. We bomb who doesn't agree with us into submission. Look at Libya. Or the Iraq invasion.

So no, Washington is not conducting it's proper role. And the sooner people like you wake up and smell the coffee, the sonner America's greatness can be restored.

[Revolutopia]

Earmarks don't increase spending, they merely allocate them. Earmarks have been given a bad name by the executive, because if it's not earmarked, then the federal agencies get to decide where the money goes instead of Congress.

Wouldn't a good little Fiscal Conservative fight to cut that spending, and not directly ask for it? Also fun fact Congress gets to decide where all the money is spent even without earmarks.

Even if earmarks are accepted as fically conservative, shouldn't a constitutionalists like Paul be opposed to Federal government subsidizing any local business or state agency in his district? In how, the constitution does not grant that right to the Federal Government. Through I guess that might make it harder for Paul to get reelected, thus explaining why he eagerly dived headfirst with all those "liberals" like Pelosi to Frank in order to ensure his needed pork despite the funds going for "unconstitutional" spending.

[Grave_n_idle]

I can only laugh as you blatantly ignore history. The federalists haven't won, and why you pick 1787 I don't know.

I find that shocking, I have to assume it's hyperbole... you can't possibly...

The Constitution was beginning to be ratified that year.

Ah. I see. You do know why I picked 1787. There's hope.

1787 was the start of rise to power. Because we followed the checks and balances in our Constitution and played our proper role. We emerged as a world power due to this. It wasn't until the 20th century when more and more big government programs emerged that our country took it's fall.

...and there goes the hope. Panic of 1873? Panic of 1893?

And you accuse me of ignoring history.

Washington as it is today, it is taking us there again. Why? Because most of them are power and money hungry bureaucrats whose only focus anymore is to impose government in our lives.

If that were true,you'd actually be making the same argument the federalists were making.

This is leading us back into the shithole you've described.

-Our country is on the road to bankruptcy again. Just look at our debt.
-We are weak to the point where half the world hates us for trying to extend the American empire. The Middle East for one.
-We don't conduct diplomacy anymore. We bomb who doesn't agree with us into submission. Look at Libya. Or the Iraq invasion.

Your silly posturing impresses no one. America is currently saddled with debt, but America in 1786 basically had no viable currency, and no one wanted to trade with us. America may be 'hated' - and you can blame the foreign policy changes made in the first decade of this century for that - but we're not yet weak. And we may have bad diplomatic relations, but at least we HAVE diplomatic relations.

Seriously. Read some history. Read the Federalist Papers. Get yourself an idea of just how bad it was... and how bad you apparently would like it to be again.

[Jinos]

I can only laugh as you blatantly ignore history. The federalists haven't won, and why you pick 1787 I don't know. The Constitution was beginning to be ratified that year. 1787 was the start of rise to power. Because we followed the checks and balances in our Constitution and played our proper role. We emerged as a world power due to this. It wasn't until the 20th century when more and more big government programs emerged that our country took it's fall.

This is false. Our country did not even become a world power until 1898, and it certainly was not a proven one until after WWI. And it certainly had nothing to do with "checks and balances" and more to do with the US Navy. In fact, we reached our zenith in the 90s after the collapse of the Soviet Union left us a global hegemony.

We had the best education system that was the envy of the world, until the Department of Education was established.

Which is false, the department of education exerts very little influence on schooling in America. It cannot even influence curricula or educational standards. Then again, they just make an easier scapegoat don't they? Our educational system was also pretty much non-existent until the beginning of the 20th century when 'big gubment' decided to make public education.

Washington as it is today, it is taking us there again. Why? Because most of them are power and money hungry bureaucrats whose only focus anymore is to impose government in our lives. This is leading us back into the shithole you've described.

No, the shithole is our government, which is imposing less restrictions on corporations, and allowing them free reign to fuck over America, gamble with our economy, and use our environment like toilet paper. Having practically been bought off BY said corporations.

The problem isn't "big gubment" the problem is big multinational corporations.

[Wikkiwallana]

The Zionist lobby will prevent him from being elected

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162- ... our-forum/

Not even remotely his biggest problem.

[Ashmoria]

I wish he were young enough to be electable.

surely rand paul will run in '16 on the same platform as his father

[Farnhamia]

The Zionist lobby will prevent him from being elected

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162- ... our-forum/

Not even remotely his biggest problem.

No, this is.

[Wikkiwallana]

Not even remotely his biggest problem.

No, this is.

I was going to go with himself, rather than his campaign, but good enough I suppose.

[Farnhamia]

No, this is.

I was going to go with himself, rather than his campaign, but good enough I suppose.

If he'd have gone with vagueness and hand-waving he might stand a better chance, but once he starts trotting out Ayn Rand and "We The People" and gold and letting the States do whatever they want ... people are not that stupid.

[Revolutopia]

I was going to go with himself, rather than his campaign, but good enough I suppose.

If he'd have gone with vagueness and hand-waving he might stand a better chance, but once he starts trotting out Ayn Rand and "We The People" and gold and letting the States do whatever they want ... people are not that stupid.

Sadly, the fact is likely the Ayn Rand and allowing the States trample over individual liberties is probably nothing that would not keep him from being elected or nominated. Instead, it is more his tinfoil rants about Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the Military that will thankfully keep him out of the White House.

[RB Rebecca Black]

I am a liberal and he is my favorite GOP candidate because we share quite a few libertarian views. I'd still prefer Barack Obama over him, however.

[Sociobiology]

I like him, I like my crazy right up front were I can see it.