Ron Paul .. the only True Constitutional Candidate

[WWIIIDefender]

Ron Paul makes Chris Mathews his B****
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MF4Bx9N_-W4&feature=channel_video_title[/ame]

 

[RockofStrength]

The state has no business regulating religious ceremonies. --SNIP--

QFT. I'm glad to see that Mr. Paul seems to get that. The government has no business giving or taking away any benefits based upon the fulfillment of a religious rite. The fewer points of power the government has over my beliefs, the better.

 

[Lex Concord]

If he chooses a vp who will reflect his values, I would say this is a non-issue. The only problem is that there are few who reflect his values haha.

Rand Paul

 

[DustinG]

While i like ron pauls small government campaign, i cant say i agree with his opinion of legalizing cocaine, heroin, and prostituion. I also disagree with allowing the states to decide about gay marriage. We are one country, if one state allows it i think all should and vice versa. This is really making me question him. Maybe someone can help me see the light?

I did not either, but then if finally clicked after studying history and comparing drug laws to gun laws. All drugs used to be legal, but we don't have the same problems we have today. Do you see gang members selling and killing people over alcohol? No. Why? Because it is perfectly legal, although there are still the idiots that do bad things while under the influence.

The same thing goes for drugs. When banning drugs, it creates a black market for the drugs, so somebody has to provide it (i.e., the drug cartels in Mexico). This is whey there are all the border problems (not talking about illegal immigration). Whether you have it illegal or legal, the same idiots will still be doing the same stupid things while under the influence of the substance, however, the incentive to kill people, etc. is gone because the black market has dried up.

The same thing with gun laws. Does a background check really prevent criminals and murderers from obtaining guns? No, however, it creates a black market for the guns; which people who purchase through do not go through a background check.

Legalizing drugs does not mean that you approve of the drug use; it means that you are allowing people to make their own choices (which they already do even if it is illegal). U.S. Congress also does not have the authority under the Constitution (it is not a living document!!!) to regulate drug use, abortion, etc. These decisions were left to the states to regulate themselves and to the extent that they deemed necessary.

Although I am pro-life, the federal government does not have the authority to regulate abortion; nor does the Supreme Court have the authority to strike down state laws prohibiting it. The greatest part of the United States was the ability of the states to experiment with different laws and beliefs so that the citizens could choose which state they wanted to reside in and change the laws through a state level.

 

[Lex Concord]

Ron Paul: I Would Not Have Ordered Bin Laden Raid - FoxNews.com

You'd still for him, even after he would have had him in his sights???

Au contraire. While Dr. Paul may have disagreed with the nature of the mission that allegedly killed bin Laden, he (Paul) has stated on numerous occasions that he would have, instead of going into an undeclared war, he would have favored issuing Letters of Marque and Reprisal, which might have gotten Osama bin Laden far sooner.

Whatever the outcome, he preferred the more narrowly-focused and Constitutional approach to the road taken. Do not be fooled into thinking he simply would have let bin Laden ride peacefully into the sunset.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSP9NteApqI[/ame]

He introduced legislation to this effect in 2007.

HR 3216 * Marque and Reprisal Act of 2007 * | Ron Paul 2012 | Sound Money, Peace and Liberty

 

[Lex Concord]

For those so inclined, you can get a full-size back window decal supporting Ron Paul's run this time around.

[ame]http://cgi.ebay.com/Ron-Paul-2012-LARGE-rear-window-decal-SET-/170626538614?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item27ba225c76[/ame]

I had the 2008 version on my vehicle, and plan to order this one soon.

 

[WWIIIDefender]

Ron Paul in his own words with out media bias.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGV2gCSJGs8&feature=channel_video_title[/ame]

 

[Lex Concord]

Why are we putting people in jail for smoking something that grew up out of the ground?

Because it is believed to be effective in treating numerous ailments, quite possibly against some forms of cancer, AND because it can't be patented.

Cui bono? Ask this question first about most laws that don't seem to be based on common sense, and you'll probably have your answer as to why the law was passed without having to search any further.

 

[rambone]

"Let the states decide" is exactly the right answer.

We are supposed to be a Union of sovereign states. We are not supposed to be controlled heavily from the top; from an all-powerful central government. Give the power back to the states, and you don't have to worry about things like Obamacare, national gun control laws, Centralized banking, Department of Education, etc. All these national bureaucracies and regulators must go. We are not supposed to be ruled by the White House.

Otherwise, ask yourself: what is the point of having States and Governors, if the Feds are going to make all our decisions for us? Yes-- marriage and drug laws should decided at a state level, at most. Personally I would get all levels of government out of the matter.

I'll add something else. A constitutional system would benefit us all because we can choose to live in a state that fits our views the best. If you want to live in a gun hating state, then go to Illinois. If you want to live in a state with no income tax, then pick Florida. If you want state-run health care, go to Massachusetts. Get it?

If we let the Feds dictate everything, then bad national laws screw all of us, and there is no place to escape for greener pastures. If the states are allowed to decide, then you just move to where the laws suit you. States model laws after one another, and if a program doesn't work well, only one state has to suffer the failed experiment. Others learn from their mistake.

Having unique and independent states works in our favor, if the system is allowed to work as designed. The 9th and 10th amendments were supposed to act as a roadblock to centralized tyranny, if the courts actually did their job properly and struck down overreaching Federal laws.

 

[GREEN607]

I did not either, but then if finally clicked after studying history and comparing drug laws to gun laws. All drugs used to be legal, but we don't have the same problems we have today. Do you see gang members selling and killing people over alcohol? No. Why? Because it is perfectly legal, although there are still the idiots that do bad things while under the influence.

The same thing goes for drugs. When banning drugs, it creates a black market for the drugs, so somebody has to provide it (i.e., the drug cartels in Mexico). This is whey there are all the border problems (not talking about illegal immigration). Whether you have it illegal or legal, the same idiots will still be doing the same stupid things while under the influence of the substance, however, the incentive to kill people, etc. is gone because the black market has dried up.

The same thing with gun laws. Does a background check really prevent criminals and murderers from obtaining guns? No, however, it creates a black market for the guns; which people who purchase through do not go through a background check.

Legalizing drugs does not mean that you approve of the drug use; it means that you are allowing people to make their own choices (which they already do even if it is illegal). U.S. Congress also does not have the authority under the Constitution (it is not a living document!!!) to regulate drug use, abortion, etc. These decisions were left to the states to regulate themselves and to the extent that they deemed necessary.

Although I am pro-life, the federal government does not have the authority to regulate abortion; nor does the Supreme Court have the authority to strike down state laws prohibiting it. The greatest part of the United States was the ability of the states to experiment with different laws and beliefs so that the citizens could choose which state they wanted to reside in and change the laws through a state level.

Very well said....... !!

I agree.

 

[Boiled Owl]

Would I look like a tool if I put my 2008 RP signs out?

 

[photoshooter]

Would I look like a tool if I put my 2008 RP signs out?

either get a big sharpie, or some of those stick on vinyl letters to correct the year, and you'll be fine.

 

[WWIIIDefender]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCm4oO_n68A&feature=feedlik[/ame]

 

[dead2rights]

Like a man of the people. A fair chunk of the voting block are fools.

I would say more than a fair chunk. Most United States chattel people vote and buy things emotionally not logically. That's why the country is in the same its in. Ron Paul makes sense and is logical. This is why winning in U.S. is so hard for him.

 

[Mr.JAG]

I pretty much agree with everything Ron Paul stands for and would definitely be voting for him if he manages to get on the big tickets.... BUT

All his stances.. his "revolution" to restore American freedom and liberty... is there even close to enough support in congress to get bills reflecting his ideals passed?

 

[Paco Bedejo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCm4oO_n68A&feature=feedlik

Nailed it @ 2:56.

"We're liable to have more attacks on us by terrorists" - Ron Paul 1998

What a goofy, unelectable kook!

 

[Garb]

Nailed it @ 2:56.

"We're liable to have more attacks on us by terrorists" - Ron Paul 1998

What a goofy, unelectable kook!

I love how he keeps predicting things, and then they happen, but he's still labeled a kook.

 

[Paco Bedejo]

I love how he keeps predicting things, and then they happen, but he's still labeled a kook.

You can't explain that! He's obviously a witch.

 

[nate1865]

He may be right on a lot of issues, but his personality is not one people are willing to follow.

He lacks that presidential air. Sorry.

 

[misconfig]

He may be right on a lot of issues, but his personality is not one people are willing to follow.

He lacks that presidential air. Sorry.

You're right because we all know charisma is the only trait a good leader needs