'

I am quite sure that Ron Paul does not forget for a moment what presidential powers are and are not.

What he is counting on is that the vulgar herd does not have a clue as to what those powers are.

Paul is also probably aware that the earth is more then 6000 years old.... which does not prevent him from acting like he can understand people who have that opinion.... and possibly may have that opinion himself

People can have all sorts of peculiar opinions.... they can even hold self contradictory opinion.

I suggest that we simply focus on Paul's opposition to a war mongering foreign policy... when we get that issue sorted out, we can move on to all these other issues.

No, that is only one issue. So maybe you are just being a Johnny One Note. I do have to ask you...if you are so het up on keeping your freedom, why do you demand that we vote for someone who is so anti-gay as to want to lock you back up in the closet(which you claim to abhor and want to force others out of)??? You will be trading one perceived prison for a real one with RP is elected and gets to implement his policies.

NO, there ISN'T...not here in Tex-ass.

Rick, you think it's going to be OKAY to live in what is essentially a collection of fifty sovereign republics protected by a central army (more on that later) but I don't think most people cotton to that idea....

...if they only realized that THAT IS what awaits them in a Ron Paul administration.

(more on that later!)

It's LATER!

Since Ron Paul believes that money and property equal freedom, what's to stop the army of right wing libertarians from PRIVATIZING THAT PORTION of the military industrial complex that deals specifically with pursuing an oil/dollar hegemony campaign against all those nice brown people in the rest of the world which happen to be living on top of great big piles of the stuff?

Yep, one nice big happy Blackwater style family!

No he is NOT privatizing the military, he is only making a sound economic decision which, in what I imagine would be the words of a Ron Paul military spokesman, frees the rest of the military to pursue a non-interventionist foreign policy as he promised.

Never mind that we would now have an INTERVENTIONIST MERCENARY army which dwarfs the non-interventionist army in size, scope and capability, Ron Paul is simply making an economic adjustment which frees us of the enormous debt that comes from running a large oil seeking publicly funded military.

He's just selling off that part which the corporations, which already own the rest of the government, WANT.

And since they would now OWN that part of the military, they are now free to do as they wish.

Don't like it? Go hire a lawyer to stop them!
Or, pick up your shotgun and wait for the war party to arrive at your doorstep because in a Ron Paul administration you have the right to defend yourself against any enemy that wants you dead, all you have to do is buy a large enough private army to protect yourselves.

What? Those enemy soldiers come from a country whose government doesn't play by Ron Paul's rules and doesn't differentiate between corporate and government sponsored armies?

Oh well, too bad, it's because they're communists of course!

Too bad
I had hoped that I had finally found a candidate who thought that the non-interventionist foreign policy was kinda important... rather than a smoke screen for all these other issues.... which are what is really important to the Paul bearers.

If Paul's non-intervention was his only position.

IMO...(I've stated before)

Even though I know that if Paul was president, he couldn't implement many of his positions. The facts remain, Ron Paul’s political positions are complex, somewhat unorthodox, and are often driven by his ideology to disempower, redefine and restructure the federal government - with little regard for the practical consequence to society.

To assume that because of his unorthodox political positions that he is a breed outside of the Washington norm and would bring a better solutions to our nation, I believe is a serious mistake.

If you read what I linked Federal Courts and the Imaginary Constitution you wpu;d have notcied that Ron Paul does not believe in settled law.



The right to privacy under the 14th Amendment is settled law though dozens of Supreme Court Cases. Ron Paul states it doesn't exist. He has no respect for settled law.

Should he be elected, he will have a Department of Justice that will follow his philosophy.Since right to privacy, settled Constitutional law, doesn't exist, he would not see any reason to defend those cases.

Both Obama and Bush have chosen parts of law that they do not defend. Obama does not defend the Protection of Marriage Act, a highly discriminatory law. How will Ron Paul's Justice Department protect laws that he beleves don't even exist, though they are settled constituitonal law.

Paul suppots the Citizens United Case, a case that swept away more than a century of settled law. HIs reasoning is that the owners of corproations are people and they can do anything they want. Again, this case swept away a century of settled law. Ron Paul doesn't respect settled law.

Ron Paul doesn't believe that the 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship of those born here. This is anothe piece of settled law from the 1860's. It is an amendment to the Constitution. Ron Paul has no respect for settled law.

Your comment on "settled law" is utterly wrong in light of Ron Paul's own words. For Ron Paul, settled law means nothing. His comments in Federal Courts and the Imaginary Constitution show that he is happy to sweep away settled law concerning a right to privacy and the separation of chruch and state.

The ideal you seek from me is this: Which is more important to me, individual freedoms prior to NDAA and the Patriot Act - or - who I love.

Individual freedoms. I'm an American first, a gay man 2nd.




(Besides, those 'prison stories' exist for a reason. Hello! I'm covered. )