Ron Paul is not only the GOP’s only hope of winning, but he truly is the best hope for the entire country at this point in history.

Ok, I’ll make a deal with you all: I promise not to give Hillary any consideration at all if you promise to at least give Ron Paul a fair and honest review when making your choice.

Deal?

Hillary was a MILF back in ’92, but is now useless.

Certainly a better choice than nonwhite Obama and nonguy Hillary!

I submit to you that you are not doing yourself, your kids, or your nation any favors by not seeing past Ron’s age and skin color. If you instead focus on his ideas and principles, the awesome character and superior candidacy of Ron Paul shines bright above the other dim bulbs out there.

That reminds me AGAIN of what a joke the ROE in Iraq are.

“Ron is also about balancing the budget.”
I say the prez should refuse to sign ANY legislation at all before congress sends him a bill saying that the national debt has to be lower at the end of each year than it was at the end of the previous year.
“minimizing our presence abroad.” That’s absolutely necessary!

“Also, the major driver of our ‘increased wealth’ for a long time was real estate and even that was nothing more than price inflation, mainly, and not a true wealth gain as a nation, but now that’s shot to hell too.”
Real estate was a false economy, people buying houses they couldn’t afford, and the Bushies turning a blind eye, till the corporations come beggin’.

Autonut, yeah, we need a libertarian (note the lowercase “l”) in charge.

Ricardo, since you noticed already both parties in the center are image of each other. On the periphery there are differences. The presidential race is selection of the middle of the road. I guarantee you that if Ron Paul is fundamentally right his ideas will be presented by the next occupant of the White House. As a closet libertarian I love everything this guy says about economics and government, but there was never libertarian in charge and I do believe in common intellect of US, even if idiots allowed to vote.

JJT, yeah, I read up on Ron’s foreign policy. He is essentially for commerce and diplomacy and for staying out of activist wars. When it does come to war (should it have to happen), his goal is to conduct the war, kick ass, win, and then leave – and to remain the strongest thing on earth. Not to nation-build as we are doing now (which is precisely opposite of what Bush claimed to be about in 2000).

Ron is also about balancing the budget. Never voted for an “unbalanced” budget and even his desired abolition of the IRS is a goal to strive for, but that he admits can’t happen overnight. By the way, if you eliminate federal income tax, the combined other revenue still come to more than the last budget total that Clinton left in 2000, so it is really not a far-fetched idea.

And about those programs that we pay for now and you are wondering how they will be paid for with no IRS – well we’d save more than the entire IRS tax-take by minimizing our presence abroad and ending the warring/nation-building we have going on now, so the funds will still be there for those social programs if they must occur, as well as a few bucks extra to pay down the federal budget deficit. Still, as such, just take your federal income taxes each year and equate it to a foreign payment because virtually all of those dollars – nearly one trillion of them per year – go overseas to fuck with others, which leads to Impulsive’s favorite topic, namely the falling dollar.

The many contributors to the falling dollar (and with it your falling purchasing power and sky-high oil) are key to what Ron Paul wants to fix which will have immense economic benefit domestically as well as to the world. When it comes to politicians Ron is miles ahead of any other in terms of economics, and he can deal the Federal Reserve chairman a badass spanking like no other. Ron will balance the federal budget post haste and with it effectively end the printing presses churning out dollars like they are toilet paper. All those newly printed dollars flowing out of this country right now and into non-productive measures have effectively eroded all confidence in the US currency in international markets as well as quite a few domestic markets. Basically we are not getting anything for our money, true domestic non-service productivity is at a standstill so there’s nothing generating wealth to back up the new greenbacks, and the major thing that is actually driving the “increased spending” is energy inflation and the resultant general price inflation. Also, the major driver of our “increased wealth” for a long time was real estate and even that was nothing more than price inflation, mainly, and not a true wealth gain as a nation, but now that’s shot to hell too.

Ron is out to stop this. It’s a formidable task and to an extent maybe a tough pill to swallow, but look at it this way: if you are badly sick (say with cancer) you may find the doctor who says “take aspirin and drink milk, and eat a candy apple” to be appealing if you kid yourself into believing that will work, but deep down you know the doctor who prescribes chemo is the one who is looking out for you. The only politician prescribing chemo is Ron Paul – the rest are feeding you candy apples and telling you it’ll work just as well.

CA36GTP- Seriously, consider what I said and look at what what Ron Pauls proposing. Literally most of the stuff Ron Paul is running for are things that have been taken away in the past 10 years. I hate it when people pass him off as having “childish views” when they are things that are agreed with by millions…

I’d rather have a somewhat realistic president, with views that millions of common people agree with than some twit whose had his hands in oil since his great Grandfather that has realistic, but limited views and walks on a line stretched so fine.

ricardohead- I’m happy to see another Ron Paul supporter.

jjt- So if you think he’s right, why not support him?

autonut: “US had small government until JFK came to town, but both parties endorsed big spending sprees at the cost to taxpayers.” Glad you recognize both parties, but let’s point some of the blame at the guy who spent more than every POTUS before him combined. Yes, Bonzo himself, Ronald Reagan. OH NO HE DIDN’T! HE DID NOT JUST GO THERE!

RicardoHead: “Even when they bitch about the overbearing government, when given the chance to vote for a person like Ron Paul they run and hide under the heavy rocks of the Dems or the GOP … the difference between the parties and their platforms is effectively zip.”
Straight truth there. That’s why we need to go outside the two-party system. Get the right guy at top, who bans all these earmarks, and refuses to sign bullshit like that bankruptcy law or endorse a mortgage bailout, and the Donkeys and elephants will get their minds right fast.

Paul’s best feature, to me, is his foreign policy of nonintervention. I say let the Jews and Arabs solve their own problems, let Chavez do whatever he wants to, and if anybody threatens America, nuke that ass!

Impulsive: It’s going to happen organically. One company just has to be the first to jump in the pool.

Commodore: “I am talking about the issues that we need a president for. The economy, the war, immigration, healthcare, and all that sort of thing. I am not sure Ron Paul will do much good in those areas. I have heard random things about Ron Paul wanting to abolish the IRS and that sort of thing, but what will he do in Iraq? On the border? What will he do for healthcare and the economy?”

Good questions.

autonut: “Cars of 60′s were called muscle cars, but any subcompact of today outrun it 0-60 with less fuel and better quality.”
As much as I love the ’70 Chevelle SS 454, I have to agree with that. Certainly the fuel and handling parts.
I tend to pedal all the time, but you may be right. I almost always ride more than three miles.

Sad to say, but the gas engine is on its last limbs. I just hope that someone creates good electric or hydrogen cars that are actually fun to drive before gas engines die.

jjt, you should not break sweat for 3 miles on the bike

‘Deanster’, you wouldn’t be in pain at the pump if CAFE was in effect since ’90 with an incremental raising of fuel efficiency every year or two. Unfortunately, at the pace the automakers are going, you might get to 15 mpg by ’15 in your Wrangler, at which point gas prices will be $7/gallon. But don’t listen to me, everyone here is right … let the market decide. Then again, I’m pretty sure there won’t be a market for Wranglers in ’15 running at 15 mpg since Chrysler won’t build for a market of 1500 vehicles.

I never wanted to have kids, but quite frankly before I’d ever want to subject my progeny to the shitty world into which these people are selling this country out, I’d rather go childless. Even my father openly admits that if he knew the country was going to go to cowardly shit as fast as it has, he would have not had kids to put up with it. He doesn’t say that because he has some problem with kids (or me) but rather as an admission of the disappointment his generation has been to the nation, and more so with my generation. You got it – since JFK – 50 years of national pussification.

Commodore, Ron Paul is no “revolutionary” in some modern sense, but rather in an old fashioned sense that draws strength from his age: namely in a traditional, Constitutional sense.

That means the federal government quits meddling in your affairs, just as the Constitution intended it to be. That means the government won’t be directly or indirectly coercing you to drive something you dont want. That means you have your choice to do as YOU please and not as Hillary or Mitt or Barack or Huckabee or that hairy-pitted bulldyke in the Prius wants. Yes, personal choice, and not government-directed coercion. It’s how we were meant to live Constitutionally, and it’s an idea that appeals to a lot of younger, older, and ethnically mixed people. An idea whose time has come BACK – not a revolution, but a return of what we were guaranteed until the feds siezed ever more power in the past 100 years (to the point where it is sickening).

How anyone of you can object to a candidate who actually wants to let you choose how to live is beyond me. Every candidate but Ron Paul is there to tell you exactly what you should do in life; only Ron Paul wants you to decide your affairs. The only thing I can conclude about those who dislike or fear a man like Ron Paul is that you are too chickenshit to make a real decision on your own, and too chickenshit to allow others to do the same, because under Paul’s ideas you can band together with like-minded cowards and invoke a set of rules to live by as a group that you freely adopt, but under any other candidate your life is pre-determined and the majority of rules are imposed from above. You may not like the rules that are imposed, but by voting for control freaks you are buying into the system of being subjected to intense control. By voting for Paul you are voting not to buy into that system.

Freedom is not a revolutionary idea. If we don’t change direction soon, however, any return to freedom will require a revolution later. Your choice. I get railed on for allegedly not thinking about future generations because I have no kids, but you cowards are selling out the future generations for the convenience of appeasing your cowardice.

Second, the CAFE standards LIMIT your choices for what vehicles to buy. That RWD Impala I wanted to buy? I won’t be able to anymore because of CAFE. The government, in order to appeal to the green movement and all this bullshit, is trying to regulate what we drive. They are literally trying to force us into driving a smaller car. I should be free to choose what I drive. If you want to drive a Yaris, that’s cool (well, not really) and I don’t care, but I shouldn’t have to drive one if I don’t want to. This is bullshit anyway because CAFE essentially limits the amount of oil we use on a per capita basis. Have you ever considered that more and more cars on the road every year? All this is doing is, at best, keeping us using the SAME amount of oil instead of more. Why don’t we get away from oil entirely. Instead of mandating a 4% increase in MPG every year, I would do something like this:
- Require all automakers to have a certain number of their cars be able to run on alternative fuels like ethanol or hydrogen. At least 4 such cars for every company by 2012, 8 by 2016, etc. until eventually all cars are available with alternative fuels.
- Require all oil companies to have a certain number of their stations to have alternative fuels available. For example, if ExxonMobil has 10,000 stations in the US, at least 10% (or 1,000) must have ethanol available at the station in addition to gasoline.
- Stations would also be required to have at least one station where an alternative fuel is available for every 10,000 living in the area (this applied to big cities mostly).

At least my idea (that’s not all of it by the way) gives us a way to increase the availability of alternative fuel and vehicles that run on it. That way, we can get away from using oil and clean up the air (pollution is the only thing I worry about, not for global warming).

Some day there will be a mexican president because mexicans will have strength in numbers. Unfortunately, they will elect a mexican just because he is one of them. And we will be screwed

I say Wayne Allyn Root

Clinton: bitch.
Obama: Liberal
Edwards: breck Girl

Paul: Old
McCain: Old
Huckabee: naive.
Tancredo: Pigeonholed.
Rudy: Connected

Romney is the only major-party candidate I would vote for. And he will not win my state.

Screw the 22d amendment!

CA36: How about this “government can’t make your life berrer, only worse.”

“Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them. ”

“I hope we once again have reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There’s a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts.”

‘Bryce’, you’re right, it is oversimplified but that is what has got you clowns where you are right now and, without change, will continue you on your path to suffering. If CAFE standards were increased from ’90, as has been posted several times now, you wouldn’t have guys like ‘Deanster’ crying over his vehicles PATHETIC mileage, despite being a vehicle that many find an attractive mode of transportation. Instead, you morons respond with “let the market dictate” … ummmmm, riiiiiiiiiiight … so Chrysler will NOW respond to Deanster’s cries? Had new standards been in place by now, he may not be crying as bad or at all.

Your ignorance continues by believing that I will be hurt by this … living in Canada, I already pay more than you but I understand and can afford it, no matter how high it continues. I can’t say the same for your countrymen who will HAVE TO settle for a smaller engine .. I won’t. And it’s not all about gas prices, as I’ve stated countless times … it’s also about SMOG and having the GTA skies polluted by NOx … and I’ve never brought up global warming.

You seem to have a problem with PROGRESS and ADAPTATION. An increase in horsepower is wonderful but a ZERO relative increase in mileage is not. Most people don’t buy a vehicle to race, and having a 300 hp anything to commute is wrong when no corresponding increase in mileage is also present. The industry is lagging in this important factor, proving it has done nothing to significantly increase fuel efficiency in the last, nearly, two decades. But you somehow think now that gas prices have risen nearly three-fold in that time, carmakers will bring out their secret technology to help with high gas prices? PLEEEEEEEEASE. Governance is the only timely and helpful hand that will correct this situation sooner than later.

Honestly, that post couldn’t display ignorance any better.

I still don’t understand the buzz surrounding Ron Paul. He is soo old, older than McCain, so I don’t see how he is the agent of change. The Republican vote is way too split right now with significant numbers of people supporting Ron Paul, Hucabee, Romley, Gulianni, and Thompson. I really hope that the Republican (and many Indepent) voters reunite once a nominee is chosen. After one of them is nominated, we must all support that candidate, even if our choice lost the nomination. Here is why:

We must prevent the Democrats from winning. Not because I am partisan (I am actually a registered Independent and support certain ideas from both parties), but because the current Democrat choices are scary to even think about.
Hillary is not new. We have been there with Clinton and we don’t need to go back. We don’t even have an idea of what she would REALLY do, because she is just telling people what she thinks we want to hear. Also, she is reverting to the “old Hillary” by attacking other candidates and that sort of manipulative thing. She is definately not honest, and her ideas are just BAD.
Obama is very young and inexpirienced. I don’t know if he would be capable to running the county. He is just like a “whatever” candidate. I don’t really care much about him, even though I agree with some of his ideas. I think Obama is like the Democrats’ Ron Paul. Lastly, most people who support him do so because he is [part] black or because they dislike Hillary. We should not be voting for someone just because they are the first mixed race person to run for prez or because we are hardcore Democrats and dislike another candidate.
Edwards. Need I say more? He is over the top, hypocritical, has bad policies, etc. plus I don’t believe he has any chance at the nomination anyway.