Election 2012

Ron Paul Devastates Newt Gingrich

This new Ron Paul video against Gingrich is a solid illustration of- and companion to my most recent Huffington Post column:

Yes, Ron Paul is a crackpot, but the video could easily have come from the DNC or the Obama campaign -- this is, if they were at all concerned about Newt winning the nomination.

  • Richard_Haydn

    Crackpot, insane, nuts, etc etc. How about some real debate? And can we get over the “clown” analogies – it’s getting old. If all the regulation of Wall Street and Keyensian economics works so well, how come we are in our current mess?
    Regulation doesn’t work because the politicians are bought and paid for. You can have all the regs you want, as long as the big boys pump up the campaign coffers they are meaningless. You do know the corporations get to write many of the laws and regs don’t you?

    I am personally against abortion, but I would never get into the business of trying to tell a woman what to do when she is pregnent. I am absolutely for a women’s right to get an abortion in the case of rape, insest or her health. It is one of the most divisive arguments because there are two competing rights: That of the unborn child, fetus, whatever word you want to use, and the mother. The other big “moral majority” type of issues continue to be gay marriage and the drug war. Again, these are going to be stalemates for a long time; with gay, lesbian, TG and everyone eventually having full rights to marry. (and “god help them” , divorced)

    Ron Paul says: let the states handle the “drug war”, abortion, gay marriage, etc. This is a very smart stance. Why? Because if you are in the Bible belt you can have your state reflect your values. If you are in a more progressive state, your values will also be supported by the law. In the meantime, we can get down to the business of a bankrupt country with endless wars. We can try to roll back the Empire that wants to crush our civil rights.

    Please also consider this: The establishment: Wall Street and Finance, Big Pharma, and the rest DO NOT give anything to Ron Paul’s campaign. If he is so “good” for them, why don’t they contribute? Of course, with the mainstream establishment candidates they tend to hedge their bets and give just about equally to Dem and Repub. Wonder why that is?

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_S7NUGMJ2FDHYATRLWFEFCC5CQI schemata

      ” If all the regulation of Wall Street and Keyensian economics works so well, how come we are in our current mess?”

      Because for the last 30 years we have been deregulating and throwing our chips into the “trickle-down” pot?

      Because it takes more than 3.5 years to fix 30 years of republican economic madness?

      Also, you say you are “absolutely” for the rights of women re: abortion. As long as its for a reason YOU agree with.

      As far as states rights, should we let those states that choose to, go back to whites-only lunch counters? should we let those states that want to, return to “separate-but-equal” classes? Should we let those states that want to, use their currency of choice?

      • Richard_Haydn

        @schemat, OK, good, we can discuss issues and not call each other names.

        You write:
        “Because for the last 30 years we have been deregulating and throwing our chips into the “trickle-down” pot?
        Because it takes more than 3.5 years to fix 30 years of republican economic madness?”

        First, I would agree 100% that the current economic mess is not Presdient Obama’s fault. Anyone that goes that route is clueless. Yes it has taken 30 years of Republican and Democrat policies to put us in this mess. Both parties, allowing the regulatory legislation to be written by Wall Street. As to regulation itself, certain deregulatatory actions were a disaster, such as eliminating the separtion that kept the riskier ones (Investment Bankers) out of the normal “saving bank” area. However, both parties participated in the bubbles. Ron Paul is very straight-forward: If someone commits fraud they should be prosecuted. Part of the problem with discussing regulations is the complexity of the regulations themselves and determining their actual effects. Ron Paul doesn’t argue that every single regulation should be pitched, just that many of them are written by the very corporations they are intended to regulate. Again, why are the fortune 500 companies filling the Republican and Democrat campaign coffers if they fear either one? Check out opensecrets.org. Ron Paul’s money comes from small donors, just average citizens.

        You say:
        “Also, you say you are “absolutely” for the rights of women re: abortion. As long as its for a reason YOU agree with. ”

        Correct, and MY PERSONAL beliefs are just that, personal. It is up to the voters of each state to decide the issue, not me. Can I not have a personal opinion? Besides, I think it is reasonable to assume that Roe v. Wade will NEVER be overturned. With the country slightly in favor of abortion vs against, and a pretty long history of legal abortions, this is a pretty good bet. I think would could agree that if a fetus was the same as a benign tumor their would be no debate. So yes, I have my personal beliefs but would abide by whatever law the people of my state enacted.

        You say:
        As far as states rights, should we let those states that choose to, go back to whites-only lunch counters? should we let those states that want to, return to “separate-but-equal” classes? Should we let those states that want to, use their currency of choice?

        Shemat, do you really believe that any state would go back to a whites-only lunch counter policy? Seriously? Times have changed greatly. One thing to consider: The biggest fear the founders had was that the federal government would become to strong, tyranical. You know that’s why they did the whole thing with the separation of powers. It is also why they gave the individual states significant powers – to couter-act an over-reaching federal goliath. This is easily verified by any research into the underpinnings of our constitition.

        Coin their own money? Nope. Just allow other means of payment to compete. Say we make a contract, I am to pay you x amount for y number of years. You can insist I pay you in silver. That way, you know you will get what you bargained for. You will know that should inflation go wild, you will still get what you bargained for. Of course the whole topic of sound currency is another huge and complicated area. Suffice to say, when the currency is inflated, we all get taxed because our purchasing power is eroded. When a government is always in the red, always forced to inflate, we are being “secretly” taxed. Of course it hurt the middle class and the poor the most. Especially those on a fixed income.

        Do I agrea with Ron Paul on all the issues? Hardly. Hell, I can’t agree with my twin brother on a lot of things. I especially have some enviromental concerns but that again is complicated and it will take more research on my part to figure out exactly what the regulatory effects are.

        I am however convinced that a man who has been consistent for 30 years, despite all the offers he must have received to change his vote, is impressive to me. And I always follow the money – Wall Street, Pharma, War Industries – they sure are not behind Paul.

        Thanks for having a conversation.

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_S7NUGMJ2FDHYATRLWFEFCC5CQI schemata

          A church in Kentucky voted amongst congregants to not include bi-racial couples in the church’s activities. So, do I think that if ballot initiatives were to be presented to a voting populace returning to “separate-but-equal” statuses, people would vote to return there in some areas of Our Great Nation? Yes, yes I do.

          Rights should be uniform from state to state. A married couple, regardless of their sex, or where they were married, should be recognized as such no matter what state they live in, decide to visit, or choose to move to.

          “I think it is reasonable to assume that Roe v. Wade will NEVER be overturned.”

          Let one of the current crop of republicans (who have a chance) get elected, let him/her put a couple more Thomas’ or Scalias on SCOTUS and RvW would likely be gone.

          As to the economic issues. Paul has some good ideas, and some bad ones. All politicians do. Well, most politicians do. So do actual economists, though.

          When you have a few million people out of work, and about $2 trillion worth of infrastructure that needs fixing, I think spending now is a wise choice. The people you pay do that work will spend that money. Leading non-construction businesses to hire, and those people will spend money, etc.. more taxpayers=more revenue=less debt.

          • Richard_Haydn

            You make some valid points. Hell I’m no genius and these are some complicatd issues. However, if a State, not a little hick church full of bigots, but an entire state even thought about voting in separate but equal laws… well it is just not going to happen. Because, as you said before, the world has changed a lot.

            As to corrupt Republicans. Don’t you get it? They are ALL corrupt. They are all “inside traders”, they all either come to national government rich and leave richer or come in poor and leave wealthy. Can’t you see that? It is a con. If you think one team is the good and righteous and the other is Darth Vader, well they have hoodwinked you. The Senate is a millionairs club and the house is not far behind.

            Infrastructure? Count me in! All for spending on it. Consider the bridge that collapsed in Minnesota the other year. Did they have enough money to fix it before it collapsed? Sure they did, many times over. But bike paths and other things were deemed more important. You know the local politicians: ” I like to give ‘em shiny new sidewalks. Our sewer system may be 100 years old, but they don’t see that”

            So we had a stimulous package and a very small percentage went to infrastructure. Perhaps the greatest portion went to keep the biggest spending (per capita) states afloat. So if California wants to pay a lifeguard 100k a year for retirement, do the people in Arkansas have to foot the bill. Or should I say, do the children in Arkansas have to foot the bill?

            So yes, your scenario works fine. As long as we pay back, reduce the debt, when things get better. But in the “good times” the government only spends more.

        • mrbrink

          Nothing is stopping you from trading in your dollars for silver and gold. Go for it. Then when a few billionaires corner the market, you can ask them for your dollars back.

          Our purchasing power has eroded because a small fraction of grotesquely wealthy people have captured all the growth in national wealth over the past 30 years while depressing wages, labor standards, environmental standards and passing on the hidden costs of destroying the air and water to the rest of us. That’s a hidden tax.

          We are where we are because Bush took a surplus, with projected surpluses, and turned them into debt and concentrated wealth with projections of over 5 trillion in debt when he left office. We lost a generation. We’ll get it back without Ron Paul selling off America’s land and labor force to the lowest bidder in the name of “liberty.”

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Rick-Janes/607039439 Rick Janes

            Just to add to your excellent reply, gold just dropped in price. Unfortunately, for those who think the gold standard is some kind of fixed point in the economic sky, precious metals are subject to the same market fluctuations as everything else. With the ‘small fry’ buying up gold as a hedge against economic disaster, the price will go up for awhile, until some wealthy speculator dumps a large amount of gold on the market, the price is driven down, the little fish panic and sell short, and the sharks at the top gobble it up cheap and corner the market. For a brief history of how this works, see what the Hunt brothers did with silver some years ago.

          • Richard_Haydn

            So why not let me have the choice, paper or gold? Why would you care? It is now ILLEGAL to use gold or silver as tender. From your reply you must assume that the way to get the economy going is to tax the wealthy. Ok. Don’t leave out your favorite athlete, the Apple Execs, the folks that act in and make the movies you like, etc. You might want to tax my boss heavily. He’s a small business owner of a non-union shop. He pays and treats his employees very well and puts a lot of money into new equipment each year.

            We live in a Republic, not a Socialist State. I agree with you that there are those that receive enormous salary and bonus. I guess someone feels they are worth it? Did Steve Jobs deserve his many millions for all the things he helped bring to market?

            Back to Bush. Well I didn’t like most of the man’s policies. Adding a prescription program when he new we had trillions in unfunded liabilites for S.S. and Medicare allready. But honestly, I just think all the Left Right stuff is bull. They all leave office with a higher deficit. Even Clinton, though he did a better job then most and managed to get a surplus out of the budget, but the long term debt grew of course because it has interest accrued. Funny, was it you or someone else that keeps saying we have to police the world, all the active engagement stuff. That’s what truly blew the Bush budget, a couple trillion on the wars.

            For those that are afraid to try and make it on there own and feel the government is the answer to all our problems, I just don’t agree. I don’t need to here about the poor. Yes, there are truly poor and truly disabled people that need our help. But there are a many dregs. I lived for a short time, in the early 80’s, with a couple of heroin addicts. They new every trick in the book to get there free clothes, reduced rent, reduced utilites, and on and on. Without the minimal assistance that allowed them to just get buy with a little prescription drug sales (with the help of a greedy M.D.) they might of got help sooner. John died pretty young and I think their daughter must be permantly damaged from the neglect. Then there are tenants I have that have plenty of money for beer, weed, cell phones, tattoos – oops nothing left for rent. Don’t tell me about the poor, I have lived among them. The constant phrase “I’m waitin’ on my settlement”. Then my father-in-law that doesn’t know what year it is and can’t find his house is denied.

            Yeah, 2 neighbors that could work all day in their yards, lug stuff around, you name it – both “disabled”. I think most of the people that talk about the “poor” live in a gated community somewhere.

            Then there are obviously people that need help. The truly disabled, the mentally ill, the down on their luck people. No problem, we need to help them out.

          • mrbrink

            400 families own more wealth than 150 million Americans not by accident, or success, but because they stole it from the mouths of the poor.

            Two words: “Corporate personhood.”

            And your experience with “the poor” should have taught you better lessons than that.

            Who’d you vote for in 2004?

          • Richard_Haydn

            Mrbrink, I think you and I probably agree on many things. Proabably one of the worst things in our country is crony capitalism and crony capitalists. Those that prey on the poor. I would include the mortgage companies that sold loans to people when they knew they would never be able to afford the payments. What did they care, they got their commission. The credit card companies that issue worthless cards with outrages fees – sometimes the recipient has nothing left on the card when he gets it – all fees and bs. These people should be prosectued.

            I voted for G. W. Bush in 2004. I am very sorry I did. I didn’t pay much attention to the primaries or even the election. Like many, busy with raising a family, work, what have you. I think it was a big mistake. When I heard President Obama speak in Chicago I thought we could have some meaningful change and that he could bring people together. Unfortunately, the state of the economy has consumed much of his energy.

            Look, I am not into arguing with people on-line. I think we need to figure out a way to get the economy on its feet. You may feel that government is the answer. I think government has an important role to play, but I think in many ways it is the problem.

            So how do we get the economy growing for the long term and avoid the boom and bust cycle as much as possible?

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Rick-Janes/607039439 Rick Janes

            Richard_Haydn, you’re operating under several misconceptions. The first of these is that wealthy people and corporations actually pay the full rate in taxes — they don’t. GE and ExxonMobil, just to name two of many corporations, paid NO federal income tax for several years recently. (They also cut American jobs during that time.) Most of the wealthy take advantage of tax breaks not available to us lesser mortals to bring their true tax rate down to 15 or 20 percent instead of the 35 percent they are supposed to pay. Those who live on investment dividends (capital gains) pay only 15 percent tax on their income, and most of them are filthy rich. The average middle-class worker, when you total up payroll and federal taxes, pays over 20 percent. This is clearly unfair.

            Secondly, I can’t think of anyone I know who would be bothered if a favorite actor, athlete or Apple execs had to pay higher taxes. If they’re making a fortune, I don’t think they’ll miss any meals.

            Third, this country was most prosperous in the ’50s and ’60s when labor unions were at their highest membership, the middle-class was expanding, Wall Street was tightly-regulated, CEO’s were paid about $40 to every one dollar earned by the average worker, and the wealthy and corporations paid 50 to 90 percent of their income in taxes. Now, with taxes for the rich at their lowest, lax regulation of the markets, the middle-class shrinking, CEO’s making $400 to every one dollar earned by the average worker, and low union membership, everything’s falling apart. If your ‘free market’ (and there has never really been a free market anywhere in this world) capitalist ideas worked, we’d be living in an economic paradise, but they don’t and we aren’t. It wasn’t John Maynard Keynes or John Kenneth Galbraith, or liberals or socialists or hippies or OWS who crashed the American economy in 2008; it was the Republican Party, along with some Blue Dog Dems, who bought into the fantastic theories of Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand and the Chicago School of Economics that prescribed rewarding the wealthy and hoping it magically trickles down to the rest of the country. It didn’t work during the era of King Louis XVI, and it still doesn’t work today. It only results in more corruption by those at the top at the expense of everyone else. If you doubt this, just look around.

          • Richard_Haydn

            Rick James, you make some very compelling arguments. First, I group the corporations, like GE, that are able to right their own tax policy and have the congress impliment it for them, as “crony capitalist”. This is a group that Ron Paul especially loathes. I also agree with your assesment that the average worker, like me, gets the shaft.

            However, to think we have been operating under any economic theory except Keynesian? If we were operating under an Austrian economic system for the last 30 years the country would have no, or a very modest national debt. The government would be much smaller. I don’t believe in the trickle down theory, especially when it comes to large corporations. I do think it applies in some ways to small businesses, having been a small business owner and consulted for many small businesses. Small businesses do create jobs.

            How anyone can say it’s all the Dems fault or it’s all the Repubs fault is beyound me. They have shared power throughout the period and there combined policies have been a complete failure. The housing crash was caused by government agencies, the FED, and Wall Street working together to pump up the housing market for personal and political gain. Then they got together and bailed themelves out.

            We can all continue to play the Democrat v. Republican game. The only losers are the average Americans. Most of the politicians could care less about you and me. They will leave congress and make a bundle going to work for one of the crony companies or lobbying.

    • mrbrink

      ‘Free bananas!’

      You said: “If all the regulation of Wall Street and Keyensian economics works so well, how come we are in our current mess?”

      That’s false, even if you just woke up from 1979. Deregulation, trickle down economics, ‘starve the beast’, preemptive war, Oliver North, Dick Cheney– these are the voyages of right wing maniacs who wipe their asses with America.

      This is great: “I am personally against abortion, but I would never get into the business of trying to tell a woman what to do when she is pregnent.”

      And in the very next sentence you lay out the parameters: “I am absolutely for a women’s right to get an abortion in the case of rape, insest or her health.”

      Later on you say: “Ron Paul says: let the states handle the “drug war”, abortion, gay marriage, etc. This is a very smart stance. Why? Because if you are in the Bible belt you can have your state reflect your values.”

      Translation– Let the religious nuts take over whole states and backdoor-nullify the Bill Of Rights and a woman’s right to choose. Let the states decide whether gay marriage is a right and not the gay people themselves– whether you like it or not.

      Let’s talk about expanding rights, rather than using government as a weapon against freedom, as you and Ron Paul suggest.

      This: “We can try to roll back the Empire that wants to crush our civil rights.”

      — Look no further than the tyranny of your states’ rights argument.

      “In the meantime, we can get down to the business of a bankrupt country with endless wars.”

      We are not bankrupt, as long as we keep the GOP away from power. We are not bankrupt, unless you believe in the end of times or intend to throw off the full faith and credit of the United States. America’s not going anywhere. It’s not going bankrupt. Our economic reality and potential is the envy of the world. Right wing America sullies our good name with every pull of the lever.

      • MrDHalen

        Wow!!!! Now that’s a take down ladies and gentlemen.

      • Richard_Haydn

        @MrBrink and Dan Halen,
        I am not trying to “take down”, “smack down”, or “destroy” anyone. I am simply trying to have a conversation, like we might have if we sat down somewhere over a glass of our favorite beverage. I don’t really believe in the Left v Right way of thinking of things. I believe ultimately in more liberty and freedom v. less liberty and freedom. I simply feel that when the federal governemnt gets to large and powerful that we loose freedoms.

        I would comletely agee with all your comments about pre-emptive wars and think the neocons that control the Republican party are the worst thing that happened to this country. Don’t you understand yet that Ron Paul is neocon enemy #1?

        As to gay marriage, I have no problem with consenting adults getting married. I personally would never try and tell a pregnent women that she couldn’t get an abortion. By the way, after trying out many religions, I am a confirmed agnostic.

        But you have to consider the values of those that are deeply religious. Afterall, it’s not like Gay Rights have always been around and they are trying to curtail them, is it? This is something new. If they consider gay marriage a “sin”, what are you going to do? Give them a brain transplant?

        As to the “we are not bankrupt” argument. If we have continually added to our national debt, except for a brief period under President Clinton, what are we? You don’t have to ask either Dems or Repubs. Ask the independent government agencies that keep the statistics. Our unfunded liablilites (the money we should have been putting away for the future) for Medicare and Social Security are somewhere in the area of 40 billion dollars. This is so key to understanding Ron Paul’s policies. If we stop the Empire, the useless spending on foriegn wars and foreign outposts – if we stop spending on government programs and agencies that really do not benefit the people, THEN we can shore up the very critical and essential programs like S.S. and Medicare. Yes, he would like to allow younger people to “opt out”, but only when we can guarrantee and actually fund those that will rely on the programs. The government has not been a very good stuard of our SS tax money.

        As to “full faith and credit”, yes we may be able to borrow for quite a bit longer. But do you believe that this can go on for another 20 years? How about the current downgrading of our soveriegn debt but some ratings agencies? Are you comfortable knowing that we must borrow from China to keep things going? If debt doesn’t matter, just cut everyone in the US a check for 200k and let’s get the economy rolling.

        Greece is a miniture case of the U.S. The politicians promised the moon and more than half the people worked for the government with great benefits and wonderful retirement programs. The only problem? They did not collect enough taxes to pay for it – they simply borrowed the money and the government lied about their economic condition. When you simply print (borrow) money, the value of that money will decrease. That decrease shows up as less purchasing power. That is a tax.

        But the problem is just discussing all of this because it is not a simple 999 slogan or a simple slogan of any kind. Government financing is complicated. Wall Street “products” are complicated. One thing is sure, the current system simply takes us from boom to bust repeatedly. And the regulators always say “we’ll catch ‘em next time”. To think that ANY economist wasn’t aware we were in a housing bubble is beyound imagination. Every intro to Finance book has a whole chapter on the subject.

        Again, let’s not strive to “smack” anyone down. Let’s try to come up with some real solutions to problems we can tackle and realize on some moral issues Americans will just have to agree to disagree.

        • mrbrink

          You sound like you’re okay with being a bystander while states’ rights run amok all over women’s rights, gay rights, voting rights, union rights, rights, rights, more rights, religious freedom, separation of church and state, just to experiment a little with complete privatization, for-profit absorption, of publicly-funded health and retirement insurance programs, education, and the complete nullification of whole regulatory departments in a world that has grown through world wars, industrial and sexual revolutions, assassinations, a race to the moon, rovers on Mars, “We didn’t start the fire, it was always burning since the world’s been turning”…since the founding.

          Calling you and Ron Paul crazy is the least I can do for you at this juncture.

          • Richard_Haydn

            I like the Billy Joel song. Well you covered a lot of ground, probably a years worth of conversation and debate in there!

            Sure, I realize the world doesn’t stand still. Let’s face it, I don’t think the founders ever thought much about FCC regulations or Credit Default Swaps.

            I am certainly not standing by while the Feds try and give the military the power to pick you up off the street and whisk you off to our Cuban military base. I called by my senators on that one. Gay Rights? It’s a new concept actually. Gays had NO rights prior to a few years ago. I’m in my 50’s so I have lived through a lot of the changes you mention.

            Some of the things you mention are specifially covered in the Constitution, like the separation of church and state. The constitution was designed to give the Federal gov. certain, specific rights and reserved other for the states. This was precisely to keep the federal government from becoming too powerful.

            It’s a little disengenous to term abortion as “woman’s rights” in my opionion. I am sure you are a fan of science and not creationism. If you think in strictly scientific terms, a new life begins at conception. But it is a waste of time arguing about abortion. Some people will feel it is a womans right under any circumstances, some will feel it is murder under any circumstances. That’s just the way it is.

            Wall Street and the rest of the fabulously rich power brokers love to see the old “right” v. “left” ball game. Complete with exciting smack downs and gottchas. I am sure many posting on these sites get very excited about playing the game. Meanwhile, they continue to rob us blind: reaping the rewards of wild gambling and giving us the bill when they fail.

            Complete nullification of whole regulatory departments. Do you know exactly what they do? Weren’t the people that were supposed to protect us from the lax practices of the off-shore oil drilling companies too busy getting boozed up at the industries parties to worry about it? I could set up a new department and call it “The People Empowerment Dept” and it’s main purpose could be torture. Names don’t mean anything.

            Publically funded programs sound great. Hey, I would love 1st rate health care for everyone – believe me it costs me a bundle each month. My brother and his family can’t afford it and go without. I sure wish I could get a decent retirement, as it is my 401(k) is looking pretty sick. These are all really good things. The problem? When government intervenes it tends to drive the cost to the moon. Look at the key area they have been involved with over the last few decades: Education, Medicine, Housing. Professors are now paid like rock stars. Why? Because the governemnt borrows/prints tons of money and throws it at that sector in the form of student loans. The price sky-rockets and university administrators and staff suck most of it up. Result: education costs increasing at many times the general inflation rate and students graduating with horendous debt and no jobs. Medicine, well you know where the price of that has gone. And who’s making a killing? Insurance companies and Pharma. There all for a mandate, as long as the Insurance companies can limit compettion and Pharma forces the gov to pay full list price. The housing sector, do we even have to cover that?

            So what’s the other option if the government does these things but can’t pay for them without continually borrowing? The only thing I can think of is higer taxes, more revenue to put it gently. From who? If you say, well the super rich of course, my answer is how? If being rich and powerful didn’t make you powerful, then why would anyone aspire to it? The best we normally get in tax revenue, no matter what the rates, is around 18-20% of GDP.

            You really have to ask yourself a more basic question: What is the role of government? If you believe it is to prescribe how to raise your kids, tell you what you can and cannot eat, drink or smoke, strip search you at the airport, “drone” you if they think your a bad person, control the amount of water in your toilet, provide your medical, dental, and eye care coverage, make sure you wear your safety belt, and on and on and on – well I hope you enjoy all the benefits.

            I leave you with someone you might consider just an old white guy that owned slaves:

            Thomas Jefferson: “A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have.”

          • mrbrink

            Gay rights are found in the constitution.

            That’s what the Ninth amendment was written for:

            The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

            “What is the role of government?”

            To recognize and protect my rights.

        • MrDHalen

          It’s a debate. He deconstructed and took down your argument; not you as a person.

  • http://twitter.com/TaosArts Taos Arts

    Crackpot? Pot calling kettle….

  • Corebela

    Wow that looks like it could be a very effective ad.

  • http://twitter.com/JimmyAbra Jimmy Abraham

    I think Ron Paul thinks its his turn to drive the clown car and jumping to take the lead…It ought to be fun for him and the Paultards to get their wish and have him finally to get the press time they think he deserves…Do they really want the focus to be on his special brand of crazy!

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Rick-Janes/607039439 Rick Janes

      Once voters get a load of Ron Paul talking about completely deregulating corporations and Wall Street, as well as his anti-drug war stance (which is one thing I agree with him on), his turn as the Anybody But Mitt candidate will be over. Of course, he may not get that far — a lot of big GOP money doesn’t want Paul within sniffing distance of a primary victory — he’s just not deep enough in their pockets to be trusted. Newtie and Mittens on the other hand…

      • mikecz

        He’s the only guy in the field that can take independents, and some Obama supporters.

        1. Anti-war (remove troops from foreign occupation)

        2. States rights on Gay Marriage

        3. Legalization of Marijuana (don’t know if it will happen, but he would make a valid discussion)

        4. Regulating the Federal Reserve (As they are the culprit of one of the most effective wealth consolidations in human history…http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEZfMruLMSI&feature=related)

        5. He isn’t a republican in today’s definition of the party.

        Either way, this ad is a beauty.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Rick-Janes/607039439 Rick Janes

          Ron Paul has said some things I agree with, but his anti-women’s rights stance on abortion, and his willingness to let the unregulated ‘markets’ and banks determine our economic future is just sheer madness. Plus, he wants to get rid of unions (apparently only the wealthy have the right to organize to protect their interests), and junk all social programs, leaving the poor and middle-class out to dry. Paul has been consistent in his views, I’ll give him that, but his quasi-Libertarianism just won’t work in the real world. Besides, who names their kid after Ayn Rand?

          • http://twitter.com/FritzEcokoehn ekonokoehn

            Yes Ron Paul says some things that, in general, i agree but completely disagree with his reasoning. He may be with me on Iraq but that is more about an ideology rather that pragmatism. There are also a lot of myth of Ron Paul (hereon more of a reply to your replyee)…Regulate the Fed? That is a myth that it is unregulated and unaudited. Some of his stances on freedom are no-brainers that anyone should have (gay marriage and pot) but that is what some people use to make him seem like a sane republican to non-republicans but yet they ignore how far insane he is on other issues – foreign policy and/or economics where he is isolationist and protectionist though he tries to disguise as a free-marketer…this does not mention how a lot of his “ideas” are based on conspiracy theories…why is it that all Paul supporters I know tend to know Alex Jones’ thoughts by heart?

          • mikecz


            The isolationist title is total crap. He’s for free trade, if anything, he is quite the opposite, no sanctions (which lead to war), no military occupation (which also leads to war), and open trade. That is pragmatic, not isolationist.

          • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

            mikecz, I think you’re off the mark on Paul’s isolationism. Just because he calls it by another name of “noninterventionism” doesn’t make it true. If the end result is the same (isolating the US and detaching our interests from those of other nations) then it is still isolationism. Your argument and his is just sophistry.

            Furthermore his desire to “nonintervene” and completely openly trade is absolutely impractical. Do you really think that US investors would put millions into foreign ventures and then stand back just wishing that things go their way? Trading by definition indicates entanglements and competing interests.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Rick-Janes/607039439 Rick Janes

            Mikecz, I didn’t say anything about Paul being isolationist. What I said is that he’s advocated ‘free markets’ and no regulation, even within the US, which, as I said, is madness. It’s been tried and hasn’t worked.

          • Richard_Haydn

            @Irishgirl, So it’s good for us to have 900 bases around the world? I’d call that an Empire, no matter what you call it. Hey, if you like Empires, that’s your choice. They tend to be a little slack on civil rights and eventually fall from their own weight. And just how good is this Empire thing working. Besides forcing us to borrow from China to keep it going, we kill many of our young people. Our people should get maimed, innocent children killed, for what? Because people are so scared they think a terrorist is hiding under their beds? If we were simply “engaged” with other countries that would be great. Most of our “engagement” consists of bribing with money we borrow, or killing them using money we borrow. When we finally get out of Afganistan the media coverage will drop off and most people won’t even remember it. It is simply a way to protect oil interests and feed the military manufacturers.

          • mrbrink

            Our military bases do not constitute “empire.” The great majority of our military bases hardly constitute a military base.

            And if you’re traveling abroad, a minimally fortified U.S. embassy is the last thing you want to see!

            On my list of concerns, or cause for debt and troubles, our military base presence around the world ranks right below my fear of “Anchor babies.”

            You go engage with Russia and China on the premise that the world is theirs for the taking and they’ll take it and laugh.

            The world would eat you and Ron Paul alive while Ron Paul allows multi-national corporations to devour us at home.

          • Richard_Haydn

            The US, not counting the actual direct war costs, spends 700b a year on the military. The country that spends the 2nd most amount of money is China, they spend 100b. We borrow from among others, China, to permit us to spend this much. How many bases does China have in the ME? Last I heard they were very busy negotiating drilling rights in Lybia.
            Mrbrink, China is our BANKER, they don’t want a war with us, they just want us to keep their economy going. That is why they keep us afloat by lending us huge sums of money.

            Wasn’t that the same argument the communists used to use to spend all their money on “defense”. “People of the Soviet Union, the evil capitalists are out to get us. Therefore, deal with the empty shelves in the store, it’s for your own good” But counties never go bankrupt from debt right? Seems to me I remeber the USSR had trouble paying its bills after they spent 10 years in Afganistan?

            I know, we are all just nieve children and don’t realize it’s a cruel world out there. Except if anyone openly tried to tangel with us they would get there buts kicked. We can be plenty strong without being the world police.

      • Richard_Haydn

        “A lot of big GOP money…” How about zero big GOP money? How about zero Wall Street money? How about zero Pharma money? How about zero AIPAC money? How about he’s not in anyones pocket at all – and that is why they will do anything necessary to keep his message as quiet as possible. When they are forced to allow that he is in the race, it will be “Crazy, old, for legalizing heroin, back to the 1700’s, not against gay rights, not trying to hard enough to ban abortion, back to the silly gold standard, on and on.

        Why does he get more contributions from active serving military than all the other GOP candidates combined? Everyone would know that stat if it was Romney or Gingrich or whoever.

        Why does he get more from federal employees than the rest of the GOP? Especially when he is talking about cutting the size of government.

        Why oh why. Those soldiers and government employees must all by nuts.