Ron Paul's candidacy

turbo

True. My wife and I live within our means. Maxing out on SS contributions for a few decades does not mean that we are "rich". Staying debt-free and living within our means has left us comfortable. We never spent money on vacations and "luxury" goods.

Very few of the vociferous anti-tax people on the right can claim that, IMO. Even without my wife's income, I was in the top 2% of earners for many years, and we socked away money. If the US gov't had increased the marginal rates for income tax, it wouldn't have fazed me a bit. The anti-tax nuts hollering about apocryphal predictions are bomb-tossers. Ron Paul is out on the margins, once you get into sections of the electorate that actually produce wealth and earn decent livings. We deserve better in our candidates.

Woopy

It wasn't directed at turbo, it was directed more or less as a general statement for the billionaires of the world.

To go to Evo's argument, I'm talking about that unconstitutional war known as the invasion of iraq which was caused by apparently us wanting to change the government of another country as well as the ''WMDs"

And I don't want freebies when I'm in a country that has libertarian upbringings. The government was supposed to be small...the fed would of been set up at the beginning if it was intended there be a national bank. Maybe the Norweigan people want socialism? Let Norway determine Norway, Iraq determine Iraq, and the USA be the USA without imposing USA on Iraq or Norway. Maybe I just like the climate of Norway and thats why I want to live there?

The government in the USA turned into something that it was never meant to be by the founders.There is a very specific document that clearly lays out what the federal government can and cannot do, and yet it is just ignored.

Ron paul is a strict constitutionalist, I don't see why people would not be? If you support candidates such as Obama and Bush, you are undermining one of the most important documents in the country.

turbo

It might be a good idea if you could support that claim. Paul is a Federalist, not a Libertarian, IMO. He would repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 because those impinged on the "rights" of southern states to suppress the rights of minorities to have access to voting and public access to public amenities. His newsletters are out there for all to see. He is not fit to be a candidate for the Presidency.

Evo

Oh please. I paid the maximum for the last 20+ years, I'm not rich.

Ok, that is a blatant falsification of what was being discussed. We were discussing Norway's social programs.

Woopy

He would repeal the act because it impinged on the business's rights to choose who they want to serve. Why should the government tell you that you must serve every customer if you are a private enterprise?

You are eluding that he is racist, when it is so painstakingly obvious that he isn't. How could someone who is a major supporter (I mean his entire campaign is based on this) of individual civil liberties. Racism is a form of collectivism, and he is not a collectivist.

Dotini

Paul's top tier finish in Iowa guarantees that more open discussion of non-interventionist foreign policy and "Austrian" economics will henceforth feature prominently among Republican candidates, supporters, media punditry and even progressives like Rachel Maddow. He has won a major consciousness breakthrough (victory) for Americans, as we obviously cannot have liberty, peace or prosperity as long as we are broke and fighting. These are the major issues of our times, and now everybody knows it.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

Evo

He lost, even though he stacked the caucus with his supporters, which are mostly "independants".

Read here, he's gone, which may not be so good, IMO. If the GOP chose Paul. analysts are saying it would be a landslide for Obama. It appears (from the mews) will be seeinhg Paul going down the tubes.

Santorum is scary, he has the Evangelist vote.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/i...065415792.html

lpetrich

However, that can justify a heck of a lot of statism. What counts as "liberties"? It's not as self-evident as it might seem.

Furthermore, one can use a lot of anti-welfare-state and anti-statism rhetoric against even a minimal night-watchman state. One can argue that government protection is a form of welfare for those who are too lazy to protect themselves, for those who want to be protected with other people's money and other people's lives. One can argue that individuals are much better at protecting themselves than governments are. One can argue that private-sector protection is much better than government protection. Private-sector protection like vigilante posses and volunteer militias and hired guards and mercenaries. One can argue that government protection has crowded out potentially-superior private-sector protection initiatives. One can argue that government protection makes creates dependency by making people dependent on government. Etc.

Back to Ron Paul, he certainly scored an impressive performance in Iowa, only a little behind Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum, the neck-and-neck front runners. But in 2008, he did much better in the caucuses than in the primaries proper, and what happened then is likely to happen this year. So the big test will be how well he does in New Hampshire.

turbo

Paul won't fly in NH. It should be a Romney blow-out with Santorum a distant second. Even with Gingrich as his wingman attacking Romney, Santorum won't fare well in NH. Just my opinion, but I think it's well-founded. New Hampshire voters tend to be conservatives, but they are not evangelicals, like you might find in the South and the heartland.

turbo

If Paul has enough money to stay in it (think Cato/Koch brothers, etc) he will end up being a spoiler that will squander a GOP majority in the House. The "coattail" idea is simplistic, but the truth is that if your party is not enthused about the people at the top of the ticket, they might not flock to the polls, losing votes for your party-mates down-ticket.

mheslep

Please show where Paul gets a significant share of his money from Cato/Koch, if any.

mheslep

Have you spent any time investigating the history?

turbo

Thanks to Citizens United, that cannot be done, and I think you know it. He's the closest thing to a Libertarian that they have, so where do you think they will spend their money or steer their donors? Our elections are now dirtier and less-transparent than ever, and will continue to subvert the will of the citizens until CU is overturned.

mheslep

Yep, but they are not entitled to receive several times what they paid in.

mheslep

CU has nothing to do with notification. I think you should retract what you invented and stated as fact.

What do you care, with Obama's billion dollar campaign fund and not a word about it? Not a word about his blowing to pieces his public financing pledge in 2008.

turbo

Have you heard of compound interest and inflation? I started paying into SS in the early 60's. If I could only get dollar-for-dollar benefits without interest and inflation being considered, I'd be pretty ticked. That's not what I paid in for.

turbo

The fact is that CU allows corporate entities to make unlimited ad-buys without ever having to disclose the identities of the donors. I won't retract fact. And please stop calling me a liar.