Ron Paul is Funny

I could not resist the bad copycat.

Kill me now.

I hate Ron paul and I detest his idiotic supporters

Most Ron Paul supporters I know don't know anything about the U.S. Constitution, or what they do know is distorted and pre-14th Amendment. Libertarians who support Ron Paul make me laugh: Paul's interpretation of the Constitution would allow state governments to dominate the lives of their citizens even more than the federal government does now. I really don't want Arkansas telling me I can't use birth control.. I don't know why this possibility is acceptable to any libertarian.

He did run for President under their label, and for about a year he was one. He has served all his time in congress as a Republican, not as a Libertarian.

Libertarians don't support Ron Paul that much, since they don't support any form of centralized government at all. You can't have it both ways, either he is a federalist or he isn't. Running for the federal position of president seems to make him one in an obvious sense, or you must have a different understanding of centralized government than I do.

This man is a real republican, the kind the democrats have not had to run against in a national election for a long time, and probably will never have to again. But that also leaves us to think about what happened to the real democrats who have died out along with his kind on the opposite side of the isle.

As of this post he has received $7,122,000.00 in a single day, more than anyone in history on a single day. That tells me people want a real change, not some promise to be taken off the table at a later date.

I would prefer one of our candidates offer that change and show a way to get there, but they have not.

I fear that if the republicans see him as being embraced by the masses and being their only chance to hold power, they will get the party behind him, and offer us some new America BS that will leave the Dems once again wondering what the hell happened. They have no problem putting in a popular puppet and trying to control him later, now do they?

I didn't say "Libertarian"; I said "libertarian." Small-l. Those are two different things. And yes, both small and uppercase L libertarians have offered support to Ron Paul.

http://www.startribune.com/587/story/1513886.html

Apparently, even the 2004 Libertarian candidate has endorsed Ron Paul.
http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2007/02/23/libertarian-badnarik-endorses-ron-paul/

Quite simply, you're wrong about libertarians (small or large) not supporting Ron Paul. You're also wrong about libertarians not being able to support "any" form of centralized government, since most libertarians support governments doing things like providing defense, police protection, laws, and perhaps roads and postal services -- various "public goods", the kind of things (probably?) only a government could provide.

What I don't understand is how libertarians (who are in favor of individual liberty) could support a candidate who is so plainly anti-individual liberty.

Sorry I took so long to reply, work called.

I do know that the big L's don't see any form of government as anything other than a Mafioso racket to separate one from their money and enslave them.

http://www.strike-the-root.com/61/davies/davies6.html

The Preamble Reconsidered

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Okay, Nurse; the patient being sedated, hand me that scalpel, please.

"WE THE PEOPLE of the United States . . ."

Mendacity, we're told, has three grades: lies, damned lies, and statistics. Let's start by seeing into which category fall these opening words.

The Constitution was signed by 39 dead white males (though they weren't dead at the time, of course) who had been elected by the respective legislatures to represent their states. The members of those legislatures had in turn been elected by the several peoples, or those of the people who were at the time entitled to vote; more dead white males, with property.

Historians more diligent than I can perhaps tell us by what majorities this two-stage election process placed the 39 signers in Philadelphia , but to illustrate the problem let me guess: that each stage was of 75%. The probability that the 39 enjoyed the support of "the people" would then have been 0.752 or 0.56--a bare majority of 56%--of property-owning males, that is. Of all adults, that would be 28%, and of all The People including children, perhaps about 21%--just over one person in five. Yet these liars asserted that they were acting in the name of all "The People." Was that just a damned lie, or did it also fall into the dark, bottomless chasm of a statistic? You be the judge.

We also know that as well as the vigorous debate in Philly that preceded the compromise wording of the Constitution, there was an even more vigorous one raging countrywide, between Federalists (who wanted to constitute a new government) and everyone else (who did not)--and that the later ratification process was hardly a slam dunk. The sizes of the respective numbers matters less than the certain fact that the entire process was highly controversial; that these first seven words of the Preamble were therefore at best a Damned Lie.

Continues with even more vivid dissection that is at least reasonable discourse. Biased no doubt but still reasoned.

More articles available from the big Ls here: http://www.strike-the-root.com/

All the Ls, as I understand it, have agreed to sit this one out and not enter the presidential election if RP gets the Puke De Nom. If not they will reconsider based on time left in the race, etc.

As far as anti individual liberty in RP's platform, I fail to see your point, unless you are talking about his own feelings on abortion. I have never heard him say he would seek to overturn Roe V Wade, I have heard him say he did not feel the issue should have been decided at the federal level. As a 43 year male who never had to address the issue personally, my opinion on the subject is irrelevant, but lets just say I do not feel the government has any right involving itself in your medical affairs at any level. Outside that single issue I am not aware of him representing what would be seen as a loss of liberty.

I would have no real problem with him becoming president for one reason, that is I don't see his ability to change any congressionaly approved laws in existence, he would not get the support needed to do so, but he could rescind all the unconstitutional presidential directives that have accumulated. Perhaps even remove us from the state of emergency declared in 1933 and still in place today. That would be worth it in my book.

But Denise still gets my money, and support. Heck, DK might name RP as his running mate, they are friends after all, thats more than DK can say about the rest of the Democratic establishment after their display over his impeachment bill.

... how come he's against gay marriage?

They're sincere.

because he's a republican.

But that's just like any other republican.

Except for his moment of lucidity on war, he is even crazier than the other GOP candidatesBut it's Gravel that gets the straight jacket from SNL :shrug:

But I suppose they never delved into his true beliefs beyond his "independent" political stance.

he has some supporters, and they are quite enthusiastic, but they do not number enough to swing an election.

"People, Looook to the Con-sti-TUUUUU-TIONNNNNNNNN!!!" in that strange whiny effeminate voice. Aside from the anti-war stuff, I have no idea why he has such a following.

Maybe instead of knee-jerk bashing every Paul supporter as a brian dead moran we should really try to figure where all this support is coming from and if maybe, just maybe, try to co-opt some of it.

Many Paul supporters, believe it or not, have not been exposed to his kooky ideas on the role of government. Many are only aware that he opposes war and is beholden to no special corporate interests. Such is the shallow nature of many American's political views. It's those Paul supporters who are ripe for the picking by someone like Kucinich IMO.