lewrockwell.com — 10. Ron Paul is too popular among people who know where he stands.9. He?s got too much money, and nowhere to spend it.8. Ron Paul is cheating by harnessing the fervor of an army of volunteers,7. Ron Paul tells the truth.6. He?s for lower spending AND lower taxes.5. Ron Paul is a man of principle.4. Ron Paul has peaked.
Aug 21, 2007 View in Crawl 4
Closed AccountAug 21, 2007
The reason could be that he's such a loon that he's become an embarrassment to the party. Nobody invites the town idiot to their party willingly unless they just need a laugh.
Closed AccountAug 22, 2007
They also forced him to give several interviews to David Duke.And they apparently also forced the Stormfront nazis to go to the Iowa Straw Poll to vote for Ron Paul: <a class="user" href="http://www.stormfront.org/forum/calendar.php?do=getinfo&day=2007-8-11&e=382&c=1">http://www.stormfront.org/forum/calendar.php?do=getinfo&day=2007-8-11&e=382&c=1</a>Weird, isn't it.I wonder why Ron Paul wont release his OTHER newsletters? He wrote those himself, right?
teichenauerAug 22, 2007
Hmm... interesting. You fail to reference where the supreme court is charged to "interpret" the constitution, which means that you assertion is fallacious and my assertion is valid. The word interpret is found nowhere in the constitution.Second instead of offering a quote or URL for the founding fathers on the topic you simply repeat your assertion. Pay attention here, you failed to rebut my assertion which again means that you are making unfounded assertions.I pretty much don't worry about separation of church and state. When the government, duly limited by the strictures of the constitution, isn't trying to rob me, regulate me or occupy foreign lands, I hardly think there will be much to worry me about the church. The church can't tax me and the church can't arrest me.FYI, for the audience here, "fundamentalist religious rightwinger" means someone who has religious beliefs and doesn't believe that government isn't the be-all end-all solution to everything. It might also mean that person has objections to abortion. It may further mean that someone doesn't think that Christian theology encompasses gay marriage. Ya know, I don't worry about that, the states have been taking care of the issue of gay marriage far better than the federal government has. Ron Paul wants the federal government to stop regulating marriage, not increase it.
kayaker712Aug 23, 2007
Good, then once you have to make it on your own and starting seeing how damn much you have to work just so you can support the bankers with you taxes you will probably change your mind.Your thread is nonsense.10) The Supreme doesn't make laws only rules on their constitutionality and had has no legal authority over the states in areas no specifically granted. You are military and swore an oath to "protect and preserve the constitution..." You would do well to read it one day so you know what you swore to defend.9) I have no idea where you even got this other than made it up. 8) FEMA caused more problems than they solved. They actually turned away private relief efforts.7) Corporations cannot be trusted which is why a free market is the only way to protect yourself. Corporations use politics and regulation to shield themselves from their actions. Only the free market without special favor can keep corporations honest. Examples are too numerous to list but available to anyone with a search engine. 6) Incoherent. I have no idea what you are talking about.5) Please provide an example, My sister first child was delivered by Dr Paul. Her husband was unemployed and had no insurance. Dr Paul sent no bill. She paid him over the next 5 years anyway.4) ??? no argument made here3)Nitpicky. He took full responsibility for the actions of a staffer.2) Nonsense, please provide evidence. Refer to answer #51) This makes no sense. Your argument is ignorant and dishonest. In Paul administration the Federal government will have no authority over marriage as it doesn't as you would know had you read the document your swore to uphold. Marriage belongs to the state or your church. No where in any published literature is Dr Paul federally controlled marriage.You asked your "points" [sic] to be refuted. You say you'll get a job eh? Good luck to you. Come back when you have one.
teichenauerAug 23, 2007
Hortnon, you claim that "all marriage benefits should be removed in any government program that exists. But that's not going to happen." then you don't admit to the possibility that Ron Paul will get government out of the social engineering business which is his basic goal. Why do you or I care what Ron Paul thinks a marriage is when the government doesn't assert that it should be dictating church doctrine then what is the worry here?And you fail to give me a response to my question: "Once Ron Paul has eliminated the income tax and removed the federal government from the realm of regulating private arrangements what concern do you think gay people should have with Ron Paul?"You seem to have plenty of time to make assertions and loaded statements about Ron Paul but not any time to respond to a pretty simple and direct question. I can only assume that if you don't answer the question, then you really aren't discussing the issue in good faith. Lastly, don't think that you can mindlessly repeat "the Iraq was is not part of this particular discussion" that it will have any effect on me. I will not allow your assertions to proscribe the limits of what I can say in a civil and reasoned debate. I realize that if you are really one of those indefinite Iraq war liberals you may not feel that 3 US soldiers dying in Iraq every day is relevant to the campaign for president but many other people do.
teichenauerAug 23, 2007
When you reduce government by 90% then there is far less "force" remaining to impose values or non-values on anybody.
teichenauerAug 24, 2007
Yea Junkyarddawg, I know, it must seem pretty incomprehensible that I think that the 3 US soldiers killed every day and the odd 17 people (a wedding party in this case) killed in a suicide bombing in Baghdad might seem petty compared to 10% federal funds for schools, but I for one would just as well reduce the number of people blown to bits. <a class="user" href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/07/06/1971306.htm">http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/07/06/1971306.htm</a>I have confidence that once the US government stops spending $12 billion dollars a month on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars that America might just manage to find a way to educate today's youth.And yes, when it comes to "anyone" an anti-war socialist such as Kucinich seems preferable to pro-war and alleged free-market advocate John McCain. Figure that.
teichenauerAug 26, 2007
@jcm267, Feel free to knock yourself out and post Romney's stats, but the link above has everyone's and people can click and read for themselves. In any case Romney is selling war and Paul is selling peace, there are some products that the voting public are getting plenty tired of and aren't going to buy any more of regardless of how many TV commercials you buy in its favor, one of those unwanted products is going to be Mitt Romney.
spazam2Feb 5, 2008
Well, the media as of now is regulated by the Federal Communications Commission. With true free speech restored, media would likely have to give the impression of lack of bias in order to attract viewers.