I agree with many posts on here that Kucinich and Paul should join forces. This would be an interesting team indeed. I think their political ideas complement each other in many ways - Yin/Yang like these two people are. Certainly, this duo would clean up America in positive ways. They would do a much better job as President and Vice President than Bush and Cheney ever could. I also think that both Kucinich and Paul could unite various thoughts on political opinion for morally positive results. The reason I feel this way is that both people, in my opinion, are open-minded, diplomatic, and are willing to accept constructive criticism and implement it if they see the truth in them.

Aforementioned traits seem rare in politicians of the United States and I believe both Kucinich and Paul exhibit all these traits. It appears that the majority of Americans truly want REAL change in their country to happen - and I believe these two guys could make that happen. Americans need HONEST politicians - ones with integrity! Especially now in this day in Age...

As the saying goes, "You can't please everybody all the time." But, I believe that this moment in history is perfect for a President/Vice president like a Kucinich and Paul. I wouldn't care which one would be which because I know a definite change in America would happen if both joined forces and won the election.

I'm sorry I missed the debate. It's so painful to watch most of that crowd as they spew their inanities and the press coddles them. I too am grateful for Ron Paul's courage because as Mr. Gonsalves says, to buck the trend is dangerous for one's career if not existence!

It's time for Dr No.

Now if only he didn't support building a wall all along the border with Mexico. I keep trying to pretend I didn't hear that, but I did, and it troubles me greatly.

I'm not sorry I missed that debate; watching the mainstream democrats talk last week was enough. The "real conservatives" are also scum, and so are libertarians like Ron Paul who aim to kill the social welfare state completely. I believe in having functioning, large governments that take care of their people; removing bureaucracy is the goal of globalizationists. Ron Paul for Nothing.

As soon as the true conservatives who care about human rights challenge the Republican Party Leadership, and as soon as true liberals who care about human rights challenge the Democratic Party Leadership, we will start to see the beginning of change.

But don't hold your breath. The leadership on both parties work together to earn their corporate dollars acting as whores instead of representatives upholding the constitution and the rights of all people. They work diligently to oppose any movement or politician that puts people first. Heaven forbid that someone would prevent our billionaires from becoming gazillionaires.

All while the things we need (water, air food supply) is being destroyed for the things we want (SUVs, plasma TVs etc).

so it goes
AG

www.NotOneMore.US - Pledge for Peace
http://www.notonemore.us/staythecourse.htm (a slightly humorus look at our president)

i am amazed and flattened by the words of Ron Paul as well. What i have felt has needed to be said in the public forum was finally uttered and by a republican no less on national television with a bunch of other republicans. Beware Rudy Guiliani. I think he is just uncomfortable in his own skin and the country will pay for it if they elect him. He wouldn't be much better than George W. Bush really, probably not worse, but not much better as far as I can tell. But, Ron Paul, whew. What a statement to make. The Republicans are finally offered an explanation ( that any idiot knew years ago) that we are in their place. How would we like that! he said. And he's right. By our own vim and vigor gyrations, our sword shaking, and laissez faire "off with their heads" attitudes ( spit ping!) we have lost the ability to hear and know reason which very often more times than not leads to truth. Thanks Ron Paul and, yes, I would vote for such sanity. Hey, it's my vote!

Ron Paul is the only decent man among the pack of Republicans. That is one more than usual. He has a proven track record of being honest. While I can't agree with everything he stands for he is not owned by the Oligarchy. For this reason he doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell of getting elected. We will be servred up the choice between two people the powers that be can control like a marionette. If I can't vote for Kucinich I will be voting for a third party candidate.

And Down With Manifest Insanity!

But Ron won the cnn poll hands down. the only thing he did not get was "most disapointing" which went to giuliani. Another republican is possible!

ron paul and dennis kucinich held a joint hearing in late winter/early spring about how we got into iraq and whom it costs. perhaps we could have a green party ticket of kucinich/paul?

For any presidential hopeful, the most reasonable and obvious question to answer, after the biggest attack on Americans on 9/11, is why did they attack us? Americans want to know if the next president, unlike Bush, will be candid about the reasons behind 9/11. Good for Ron Paul. As a New Yorker I used to stand in awe of Guiliani as he reformed & transformed the city. Now I hardly recognize the man.

Up until now I thought that whatchamacallit campaign Unity'08 or whatever was a pile of B.S.-- suggesting that we elect a Dem-Rep ticket for P. and VP, but this gets me thinking....

What if Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul shared the ticket? !!!!

Here's Ron Paul's recorded response to the question during the debate, from YouTube:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=cH3GO-XWGws

I saw him on Bill Maher's show

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/52096/

and felt like supporting him over any of the crop of Democrats, including Al Gore. I suppose if one delved deeply enough into his beliefs and positions there would be some right-wingitude about him, but still . . .

Anything can still happen. A Kucinich-Paul ticket is not impossible or even inconceivable. They get along very well.
It will take a strong grassroots movement from the bottom up to overcome the higher-up powers that be that a rapidly increasing number of us are completely fed up with. But that's how the impeachment measure got onto the California State democratic party platform.
I also feel Kucinich and Paul can work harmoniously and find ways overcome differences on certain isssues.

"I suppose if one delved deeply enough into his beliefs and positions there would be some right-wingitude about him"

In 5 seconds of research, I found:

: he rejects the U.S. having any social welfare state whatsoever, and plans to abolish income taxes if he becomes president; that means POOR PEOPLE DIE IN THE STREETS, in case you didn't understand.

: he supports the wall being built between the u.s. and mexico, is against being kind to illegal immigrants, and even wants to repeal the ammendment that grants those born here u.s. citizenship.

: he is pro-life and objects to roe vs. wade, he is also openly against gay marriage and voted in favor of the defense of marriage act.

: he beleives that the u.s. healthcare system should be a completely "free market" system, and that will somehow fix the problem; he is against free healthcare.

So basically, you people just want to vote for a free-market globalizationalist pro-life loser because you liked what he saw on t.v. Thank's a lot for rejecting minorities and poor people; for affirming that you will vote for the gap between the rich and poor to astronomically widen in this country.

I've been reading a lot of pros from the progressives on this site about Ron Paul, but iolellity is correct. Paul was a Libertarian Party member who became a Republican. Thus his beliefs and policies are a distasteful mix of libertarian selfishness and Republican ecomonic policies and social phobias. Other than his anti-war stance, he offers nothing to the progressive community. It's easy for a guy like him, with no chance at the nomination, to speak up and ruffle entrenched Republican feathers. Remember when Al Sharpton was the most caustic, incisive, and irreverent candidate on the podium during the last Dem debates? But did you really think he'd make a good president? Don't be duped by the sound bite.

We need some perspective. I've been a supporter of Mr. Gonsalves' suggestion for some time. First of all, let's be clear. This federal government of ours is a behemoth that is out of control. Our Congress exists to support the elite. Ron Paul's ideas about welfare stem from philosphy, not hatred for the poor. Most of what he wants is a libertarian utopia but he can't wave a magic wand and repeal legislation.

Think about it. Let's put together a list of $200-300 billion that could come out of the non-military budget (let's see, the War on Drugs, NASA, World Bank, IMF, agricultural subsidies to corporations, etc., etc., etc)and approach Ron Paul with these first discretionary budget cuts and the deal Robert Scheer proposed: Let's start with foreign policy and the military-industrial complex and save food stamps for last.

By the way, the health care system that you want to fund is designed to benefit the arrogant, the greedy and the semi-competent. Tens, if not hundreds of billions could be saved with alternative therapies access to which the FDA and AMA are trying to shut down. Ron Paul thinks we should have this access. Another aside. In Ron Paul's medical practice, he took neither Medicaid or Medicare but charged $35/visit (15-20 years ago) and said he made more than enough money to afford to treat those who couldn't pay.

You can't always get what you want--but we need someone to deal with the debt and the truth and he's the only one out there I believe capable of doing so.

p.s. Ron Paul opposes NAFTA, GATT, and WTO. He says they rig the game in favor of transnational corporations. He is also a strong civil libertarian. Surely there's enough common ground on which to form an alliance.

Thank you iolellity for listing some of Ron Paul's positions. I was about to do it but you beat me to it. I agree with your substance of your opposition to Ron Paul. Sadly, the rest of the republicans are worse as they lack his basic honesty.

Lol! Jsc just posted about Ron Paul's service charges to his clients. So, Ron wants the market to drive solutions, but somehow the market is supposed to ignore its primary directive of making money, and charge for its services (products) in a manner that benefits the society. That's almost an oxymoron. Our current market is not setup to accomplish this.

Lol! Jsc just posted about Ron Paul's service charges to his clients. So, Ron wants the market to drive solutions, but somehow the market is supposed to ignore its primary directive of making money, and charge for its services (products) in a manner that benefits the society. That's almost an oxymoron. Our current market is not setup to accomplish this.

: he rejects the U.S. having any social welfare state whatsoever, and plans to abolish income taxes if he becomes president; that means POOR PEOPLE DIE IN THE STREETS, in case you didn't understand.

You cannot have a warfare state unless you have both an income tax and paper money. The American people would never support our military industrial complex if they had to openly pay for it. The costs of helping the poor sans the bureaucracy is well within our means. I think you just want to force your own morality on the rest of us.

As a practical matter, Ron Paul admits that the top priority is to correct our foreign policy and de-fang the military-industrial-intelligence complex. I would hope that with the resulting tax savings passed along to you that you would increase your help for the poor. You would do that wouldn't you?

: he supports the wall being built between the u.s. and mexico, is against being kind to illegal immigrants, and even wants to repeal the ammendment that grants those born here u.s. citizenship.

I never understood the "progressive" acceptance of both open immigration and a welfare state. Should anyone from any country be allowed entry into the US and be elegible for social assistance? Wouldn't such a system be quickly overwhelmed? I don't believe that even the EU nations allow that. What about the suppression of wages of the working poor that are already here?

Ron Paul said that in the debate that the wall was the weakest reason for supporting the bill. What illegal immigration is in reality is a subsidy for corporate interests. Taxpayers are compelled to provide schooling and health care to illegal immigrants. Take away that subsidy and most of the problem will go way without the Orwellian biometric National ID (which Ron Paul also opposes).

: he is pro-life and objects to roe vs. wade, he is also openly against gay marriage and voted in favor of the defense of marriage act.

I am pro-choice (on firearms as well) so I don't share Ron Pauls views here. However, he believes that reproductive choice is a matter for the states to decide and always opposed a Constitutional Human Life Amendment. At least he is consistently pro-life as he opposes the death penalty as well as non-defensive wars.

: he beleives that the u.s. healthcare system should be a completely "free market" system, and that will somehow fix the problem; he is against free healthcare.

There is no "free health care." I doubt that the US government could run our health care system any better than it runs the VA system. And if we do have a single payers system, what happens if we elect a religious wacko that hates gays? Do we forbid AIDs treatment? Do we cover those injured while Sky diving? What about the obese? Do they pay extra? Do you even want the government in possession of your health record?

"So, Ron wants the market to drive solutions, but somehow the market is supposed to ignore its primary directive of making money..."

Somebody is unclear as to what markets are. "The market" is the aggregate sum of the individuals that comprise it. The "primary directive" is not making money, but of fulfilling wants. If I am in the market for diapers, cold medicine, wind farms, or a Muscovy duck my primary directive are these subjective desires, not money. That does not necessarily mean that the other party to the transaction holds money as his or her "primary directive" (a goofy, loaded term if ever there was one), as the media of exchange may not be a money object (as the conventional wisdom exemplified by the individual I am responding to sees it), but any object that that individual and I agree to use as a media of exchange.

Further, the other party to the transaction may and likely will accept money as a medium of exchange, but not because that person values money most, but because of money's ideal use as a divisible medium of exchange. With it, that individual can acquire the things that they desire.

I fail to see any immorality in a free market. Markets given definition by the barrel of a gun, such as involuntarily socialized ones, strike me as being full of immorality if, that is, one finds the initiation of force to be an immoral proposition.

If there's a "market for solutions", someone will try to find them, provided that market is free of the crippling presence of statist intervention.

I'm not even going to bother arguing with the right-wing libertarians who just responded in favor of Ron Paul. If you don't see any immorality in free markets and don't care that someone wants to overthrow roe vs. wade and dissolve the welfare state then there is really nothing for me to say to you. But those here who actually are progressive should be aware that this person is nothing like Kucinich, and does not share our interests.

Hmmmm. It seems that Dennis Kucinich has a better opinion of Ron Paul than you do. And Dennis Kucinich has actually knows Ron Paul and has worked with him.

The original libertarians were basically intellectual anarchists, who recognized that the essential issue was an uneven distribution of power. Only in America do we find a 50% libertarian -- the one who'd dispense with state power, but neglect the influence of private power on people's daily lives. They also, arguably, draw a false dualism between public/private, whereas in the modern world (if not always) private elites basically OWN governing public elite, or that the real situation is hybridized. The upshot is that many American so-called libertarians are not primarily champions of anarchistic freedom but, rather, apologists for the wealthy (deliberate or not).

Still, let's be careful not to reject Ron Paul out of hand. He may be on the right track -- and just needs to be coached. I say let the man talk. And I wouldn't mind sitting down with him over a beer and clarifying a few things before I jumped to judgement on him.

Sorry, but don't let Ron Paul's antiwar views get in the way of this ugly fact: As a "libertarian", he would, as president, work for the abolition of all environmental, land use, social welfare, labor, wage, consumer, and workplace safety laws on the books. He would sell-off all public land parks and facilities into private hands.

Now the whole idea from the "libertarians" that this would be a good thing ignore that it has already been tried and its results are well documented by writers like Dickens and Sinclair.

Don't jump to conclusion's about Paul's anti-income tax position. Watch Aaron Russo's film "America: From Freedom to Fascism" if you want to better understand the illegality of the current income tax system. I'm not sure what would be legal ("apportioned" is a qualifier used in the constitution apparently). But, what if, what IF... we replaced income taxes on individuals and replaced them with corporate income taxes, taxes on capital gains and dividends and "green taxes" (on pollution and other unsustainable activities. This could fund all the necessary government functions (including a safety net), especially if we reduced military spending. We could also balance the budget (and save nearly half of annual expenditures) by defaulting on the national debt and abolished the Federal Reserve. If wishes were fishes... maybe some truly interesting and radical idease would come from a Paul/Kucinich ticket-- but I don't think we should jump to the conclusion of people dying in the streets.

Some of the criticisms of Ron Paul here are sound. I will rethink. But please do watch Russo's film. Russo and Paul are close and Paul appears prominently in the film. There is no "666" printed across his forehead, nor do people around him seem to be put-off by a sulphurous smell, so it would seem he's not much of a conventional Republican (though he may be a traditional one).

Be very wary of any republi-nazi.... sounds like a Trojan horse to me.

"They also, arguably, draw a false dualism between public/private, whereas in the modern world (if not always) private elites basically OWN governing public elite, or that the real situation is hybridized."

In point of fact, libertarians are all too aware of this fact. I would venture that they who fail to appreciate this point fully are those who argue for further centralizations of state power.

I confess in my experience with, say, Objectivists or "vulgar libertarians", there is far too much sympathy for corporativist paradigms, whereby private entities enhance their market positions by the use of public patronage. But to level that charge at libertarians is disingenuous and reflects, I would say, an ignorance of libertarian scholarship. When a libertarian argues for the free market and for the abolition of state intervention, a libertarian is not arguing for hybridization or any other public/private partnership and to argue that our hypothetical libertarian is indeed arguing for such things strikes me as a full-blown case of a lack of reading or listening comprehension and not any deficiency in the libertarian argument.

Nice try, though.

As a libertarian, permit me to assure you, the corporativist paradigm is not a libertarian paradigm. Also, as a libertarian, permit me to assure you that it's far more than "a bit old" to constantly be confronted with this objection as if it had any basis in fact.

I would advise anyone not familiar with this libertarian tenet to get acquainted with Murray Rothbard. Not only he is a joy to read, his prose is quite clear. Decidedly clear on this particular objection.

Also, in closing, Rep. Paul and Rep. Kucinich are quite close, personally and professionally. Their departure stems from differing views of economics. Nonetheless, Rep. Kucinich is quite sincere in his anti-war position and the war(s) are so vital an issue, it's far past time for this kind of bickering. We need to build a coalition and find common ground. Common ground is our opposition to American imperial, hegemonic foreign policy.

"Be very wary of any republi-nazi…. sounds like a Trojan horse to me."

Rep. Paul is sincere, his record speaks for itself.

"If you don't see any immorality in free markets and don't care that someone wants to overthrow roe vs. wade and dissolve the welfare state then there is really nothing for me to say to you."

But there is something for you to say. A truly free market is one absent coercive force. Propping up a welfare state requires coercive force. Explain to us why you feel the initiation of coercive force is legitimate and moral.

Per Roe v. Wade, Rep. Paul is personally pro-life in his outlook. However, he recognizes the corrosive consequences of prohibitions. Rep. Paul would not eliminate legal abortion access, he would decentralize the mode with which it is regulated. The Federal Government usurped state power when it legislated this court decision, that is where Rep. Paul's objection stems from.

"But those here who actually are progressive should be aware that this person is nothing like Kucinich, and does not share our interests."

Nothing like? Ever heard of the warfare state? I guess not.

It seems to me that much of the contention between some of the progressives/ liberals and some of the libertarians/conservatives on this board stems from the presupposition that the other disagrees with us on ends when actually what they question is the means to achieve those ends. Just because I find the government to be an inefficient and ineffective tool in providing assistance to the poor does not mean that I do not care about assisting the poor. Quite the contrary. If I did not care about the poor, I would simply wash my hands of the problem and let the government handle it. Does anyone seriously argue that the myriad of government programs have made a significant dent in the plight of the poor?

As far as Dr. Paul goes, am I the only one who heard him say that if we were not spending almost $3 billion a day on the warfare state and the empire, we would have those funds available to address significant domestic problems like poverty, healthcare and education?

Who IS Ron Paul? They still need to know!!
NOBODY explains Ron Paul
BETTER than Ron Paul himself!

Here is an interactive audio archive of
Ron Paul speeches and interviews as a resource in chronological
order.

http://www.ronpaulaudio.com

Ron Paul, regarding the motives behind the 911 attack, pointed out to Giuliani that in 1953, dubbed operation Ajax, the United States and British Petroleum, orchestrated the covert overthrow of Iran′s popular and overwhelmingly elected Prime Minister Mohammed Mosedec and installed the Shah. An intervention the people of Iran still resent to this day(blowback).That was the mistake of a long gone administration. We don′t do that stuff anymore.
Do we?
Take one hour of your time and watch this 2003 Irish documentary film.
http://www.ronpaulaudio.com/rpaudio/TheRevolutionWillNotBeTelevised2003.wvx

His thoughts on the war are very valuable. Otherwise, he is a "dismantle the government and let the corporations rule as they see fit" kind of guy. No vote from me, though yay for a refreshing breath of fresh air on foreign policy.

"Does anyone seriously argue that the myriad of government programs have made a significant dent in the plight of the poor?"

I know during the Reagan "Greed Is Good" era, there was a homeless family begging on every street corner on my way to work. Yeah, I think government programs help MILLIONS of people eat, every day.

The comments of Ron Paul in the debate and in other venues are an example of how far the Republican Party has drifted toward extreme rightest positions and behaviors.

True Conservatism in the American context is not a polar opposite of Liberalism.... the foundational context for the Constitution itself. It is more a moniker for prudence, deliberation and restraint....not extremist bellicosity, arrogance and militarism.

Ron Paul is a traditional Conservative in terms of his idea for foreign policy.... an advocate of adherence to the Liberal American Contitution; Liberal Democracy at home.... but devoid of reactionary militant muscular ambitions to proselytize the American model abroad.

A true American would likely pick his fights wisely, then prosecute them to his advantage. This Republican administration does neither, even with the benefit of living in an era where the problems of Vietnam and other historical misadventures are themselves an historical retrospective on poor judgement.... they choose instead to deliberately repeat the mistakes of the past.

There is irony and blatant hypocricy in what modern Republicanism has become.... and what it has become is indeed not Liberal.... not American at all.

Geopolitical blowback is a demonstrable historical phenomenon.... to prosecute war in a way that is blind to the prescription from Sun Tzu to "Know Yourself" is not only folly, it is in this day and age deliberate incompetence.

Sun Tzu, the Art of War. "If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles."

Don't buy the fear-mongering that claims Ron Paul is just going to cut the government programs and let people "die in the streets".

He realizes that he can't just cut medicare and social issues immediately.

From a recent interview (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/davis4.html)
"...And you know, take some of the liberal welfare spending that Dennis might support more than I. But you know, I'm not hostile toward that. If I can save the money from overseas, put some of it against the deficit, end up with a net reduction in the size of the budget, at the same time stopping a war, I may well be very open to funding some of these programs. Because I'm not out to gut some of these programs that have taught people to be very dependant on the government, like medical care. I mean, that's not my goal. I've never run for office with the goal of slashing [those programs] even though philosophically I don't think it's the best way to deliver services and prosperity to poor people."

Ron Paul is not a "real conservative". Whatever the hell that might even mean today. Eisenhower was a real conservative. Ron Paul and his freaky little friends in the John Birch Society thought Ike was a commie mole. Ron Paul is a kook. A dangerous kook. And a racist. Probably an anti-semite. Lew Rockwell.com is a freak show and that's what the right wing libertarian Cato institute thinks. If you think Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich have anything in common, you must be hanging out at websites that do stories on UFOs and Sasquatch. Here are some links to start you off:

You google the John Birch society. Try Wiki. William F. Buckley, Jr. purged them from the conservative movement in the 50s and 60s because they were too wierd and radical even for him.

Proof from their own mouths that Paul was still in that far out orbit as late as the 70s.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north536.html

http://www.reason.com/news/show/30789.html

You'd have to be incredibly ignorant of history and politically unsophisticated to think that any liberal or Green would have anything in common with Ron Paul. Do you think states should be able to stone homosexuals if they want? Under President Paul's flawed interpretation of the constitution, that could happen.

RE: "Ron Paul for President?"

At this point I don't care if the President is Dem. or Rep. or any other quality, as long as (s)he is honest and competent at factual reasoning, and acting on it. Ron Paul does seem to fit that bill.

In a contest between Ron Paul and sly player Hillary Clinton? - As it looks, Ron Paul any time.

It's always been interesting to me how the "fringes" of both parties are so often in agreement about American foreign policy. (In much the same way the the "mainstream" of both parties are in similar agreement.) I wouldn't vote for Ron Paul because of his views on social issues, but I respect the man for his consistency and integrity, which is more than I can say for almost all of the Democratic contenders (excepting Kucinich and Gravel). His answers to the Iraq question at the debate brought to mind one of the nation's original progressives, Robert Lafollette.

"The underlying reason indeed why both parties have failed to take the people's side in the present crisis is that neither party can openly attack the real evils which are undermining representative government without convicting themselves of treachery to the voters during their recent tenure in office."

"Otherwise, he is a "dismantle the government and let the corporations rule as they see fit" kind of guy."

If that is the case, he should be swamped with contributions from corporations. He isn't. Something like 95% of his contributions come from individuals.

Corporations hate the free market. Check out Gabriel Kolko's (a progressive) work and you will see that much of the progressive legislation from the late 19th-early 20th century was actually written by big business to restrict competition. Particularly the Federal Reserve system.

He was on Jon Stewarts Daily Show the other day! As far as I could see, it's not much better than what's in office. I personally am sick to death of Conservative's! They have screwed this country up so badly I am not certain we will ever recover from their rule! They have drug us backwards into the dark ages of ignorance. So, don't hold your breath until I vote for him!

"Do you think states should be able to stone homosexuals if they want? Under President Paul's flawed interpretation of the constitution, that could happen."

Suppose the religious right resurges and controls the federal government and enacts legislation to "stone homosexuals." What is your recourse?

Look at an actual situation. For years the federal government has become increasingly involved in education often for ends deemed progressive. The right has given up fighting that trend and has decided to join it. Thats why we have No Child Left Behind. Oh and make sure your kids register for selective service and are available for recruitment propaganda.

"Otherwise, he is a "dismantle the government and let the corporations rule as they see fit" kind of guy."
======
"If that is the case, he should be swamped with contributions from corporations. He isn't. Something like 95% of his contributions come from individuals."

I'd say check his opinion on any kind of regulation, period. If he's a true conservative, he isn't for it, and with a Libertarian background, I think you'll find his opinions border on reactionary.

Gosh - there are so many posts here that I can't discuss every point I'd like to without writing a term paper. Discourse is wonderful!

Libertarians differ from anarchists is two significantly different ways. First and foremost, they do not believe in the use of force to promote social agenda. (For progressives, this is a double edged sword, because he doesn't believe in forcibly relieving people of tax dollars either. That's where the abolishment of the IRS thing comes in.) Second, they believe that a limited government role is essential, and in America they believe that role is clearly defined by the Constitution. They believe that if it is time for change, then the Constitution should be amended, not re-interpreted.

I don't agree with Dr Paul either. For example, I don't like his abortion stance, and I don't like the fence. I think that the fence will eventually be used by the neo-cons to keep us in, and it frightens me to see my "free" country being reduced to a police state. I think that the environment *must* be controlled by the Feds, because it crosses state lines.

As far as social policies go, please read this quote, because I think it illustrates that he is absolutely realistic about the horrible effects that yanking our entitlement rugs out would have: "And you know, take some of the liberal welfare spending that Dennis might support more than I. But you know, I'm not hostile toward that. If I can save the money from overseas, put some of it against the deficit, end up with a net reduction in the size of the budget, at the same time stopping a war, I may well be very open to funding some of these programs. Because I'm not out to gut some of these programs that have taught people to be very dependant on the government, like medical care. I mean, that's not my goal. I've never run for office with the goal of slashing [those programs] even though philosophically I don't think it's the best way to deliver services and prosperity to poor people." (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/davis4.html)

Ron Paul is not going to let anybody stone anybody. The Constitution absolutely protects us from cruel and unusual punishment, which makes it a Federal issue. If anything, the Christian right should fear him, because if he were king, while he would not condone gay marriage, he would take away the Federal government's recognition of any marriage.

But he isn't going to be king. He wants to be President, and he is running on a platform of stripping the Executive Branch of the powers (like "executive orders" it has grabbed over the past 4 administrations.

Look at Wikipedia, under "Free Speech Zones" and notice that the pictures of the barbed wire fenced areas are from the Democratic National Convention. That's a Bush policy that the current "progressives" don't seem to mind, because they can use it to stifle opponenets too. I don't know about you, but I think the whole country is a "Free Speech Zone."

His goal is to return more power to the people, and let the individual issues shake themselves out from there.

I think that Ron Paul is our best hope at returning our country to the freedoms we are entitled to, by birth right.

Obviously there are some who have either never studied the history of this country prior to the era of "big government" or who just fail to understand what the real motives of the Welfare/Warfare State. During the period in this country, before the "something for nothing" attitude that now pervades our society took root, there was a period of unprecedented prosperity and individual growth that was unmatched in the history of man. With political freedom came economic freedom that promoted such an incredible decline in poverty within this country that we became the envy of the world.

Proportionally, the level of poverty was nothing compared to what it is in this modern American "big government" Welfare State. Never had so many people risen from poverty with such rapidity as they did during that period in our history. Imagine, allowing the people to become prosperous through the incentives of Liberty. There is only one way to help the poor and it doesn't involve welfare. Welfare has done more to create more poor people in this country then anything else the government has devised in its socialistic agenda.

Not only was the poverty level far less, but also the willingness of the people to come to the aid of others in distress was also unprecedented in the history of man. Prosperity is a promoter of good deeds. We have seen almost a century of Welfare/Warfare State failures because it simply doesn't work and in most cases it cause more problems then it solves. During the 19th Century, there were many cases where people came to the aid of those who had suffered natural disasters; in those cases you will find that not only was the aid prompt and efficient, but it was also overwhelming. In many cases there was a huge surplus of financial aid to communities that suffered such disasters. Today we see the total lack of not only efficiency, but also accountability within our society when it comes to just about every aspect of the dealings of "big government". "Big Government Social Constructionism" is and will always be a failure…all you have to do is look at the last 70 or so years to see that it is and will continue to be a failure.

This "big government" has proven itself, over and over, to be totally inept in providing solutions to society, and the reason is that it is not the responsibility of government to do so. Government, as least as was founded in this country, was never intended to be the "big nanny" for the ills of the individual or to take it upon itself the responsibility of the individual beyond the defense of our Liberty. That Liberty is not meeted out or granted by the State apparatus, it is Providential in nature and the Right of every Citizen within the scope of individual responsibility.

In viewing the last 50 years or so, one must come to the conclusion that the U.S. Government is taking the same domestic policy as it does its foreign policy: interventionism. The ills of the world and indeed the ills of individuals or even classes of people will never be solved by the intervention of the government and that fact has been proven time and time again with failed wars, failed policies, and failed programs. The State Apparatus is incapable of sustaining itself as the ultimate support group for the world or for that matter, its own citizens because it was never intended to do either. The only valid utility our government has is limited to defending our own borders and protecting the Rights, Freedom and Liberty of the individual. The government does not have the responsibility to make decisions for each individual any more than it has the responsibility for any other nation or group of nations around the world.

Its scope of responsibility is extremely limited and yet it has taken upon itself the role of overseer and sovereign demanding obeisance, not only from the citizens of this country, but in many cases its demands are global in scope.

If we review both the domestic and foreign policies of this government over the last few decades, it becomes apparent that it doesn't have the military might or the intellectual prowess to do either with effectiveness or efficiency. The choices that this government has made, under both Democratic and Republican Administrations, have proven to be wrong in many cases and disastrous in most. The list of those choices is long and notorious; needless to say we can now add the current war on terror, the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq to that list.

On the domestic front, the list is just as long, just as notorious and just as dismal. Yet, the government continues to assert its power in areas of people's lives where it neither has any business or expertise. Its failures mount up like its debt, yet no one in Congress seems to have the foggiest idea about what is actually happening in this country; they simply set on their royal rumps, give themselves pay raises and take their five week vacations to the dismay of the citizens of this nation. It is obvious that they have shirked their responsibilities to the people, and in doing so they have allowed The State Apparatus to become more important than the people themselves. 

One would think that someone would look at the failures and realize that perhaps there is a better way. A course that could be taken which would once again allow this nation to become not only the Highest Beacon of Liberty and Freedom for its citizens, but also a nation who stands for something more than Global Imperialism. 

The goals of this government are clear and yet no one in government seems to have clarity about what those goals actually mean for this country and the disastrous consequences that will follow if we continue down this ill-conceived path. As the government continues with such plans, schemes, wars, interventions, programs, odious Acts and Laws, it will become obvious, at some point, that the government will eventually have no choice but to turn its power upon its citizens or finally surrender to their consent. 

We see a push toward more and more authoritarianism in this country because without it the government cannot maintain it supremacy over the growing unrest among the people. As it becomes evident that this government can no long sustain its ruse, the people will begin to resist and there will be no other option left to the government but to implement draconian measures intended to pacify the people. 

Our Liberty, Our Freedom and Our Rights are Our Responsibility

While I don't support every single stance that Dr. Paul takes, his record, his integrity and his ideas are as close to the intent of the Founding Fathers as I have heard in the last 50 some-odd years.

Corporations and even bigger corporations dominate our current marketplace. For those libertarians who do not think that increased shareholder value (typically in the form of money) is not the primary goal of the dominant entities in the market today, I would advise them to take a second look. I am quite aware that not all businesses have profit as their primary motivation. However, such entities do not possess enough influence to significantly affect the rules and regulations. Recent efforts to create B corporations (I may be wrong on the letter classifier) that try to include in their charter non-monetary benefits to society encounter stiff opposition, if not derision.

The notion of "Free Market as the best mechanism for delivering solutions to the public" will never work in our current setup. The notion is a utopian ideal that can only work if the needs (as opposed to wants) of the populace are independent of such forces.

This does not mean that I think big government is the solution (in fact, I do not), but there are instances where I would support a larger role for government as in the case of health/sick care (a needs v/s wants argument). I am merely not in favor of a market free of government interference when the needs of the populace are involved, and when power gets concentrated in the hands of a few individuals and entities.

If Dr. Paul can step back from his "free market as the 'best' mechanism" philosophy, and articulate a pro-individual position on social issues, he would be someone worthy of consideration.

Thought Shaman:

I think you will find that not only does Dr. Paul oppose individual welfare provided by the State, but he also opposes the Corporate Welfare State that has promoted itself over the last century. If you read any of his writings you will find that he is totally opposed to the extremely cozy relationship between big government and big corporations. The "Free Market" as it is being presented and thus implemented is anything but FREE; it is a highly controlled activity of the State in this country and others. The WTO with its so-called "Free-Trade Agreements" promote an agenda, which is not only opposed to the Free Market place, but to individuals attaining freedom or prosperity through those agreements. Those agreements are socio-political tools built upon the very same premise as the graduated income tax and fiat currency systems: a social construction through a re-distribution of power and wealth.

If you look at the history of the present system, it is evident that none of it could take place without the "coup d'état" of 1913 when the Federal Reserve Act, as well as the 16th and 17th Amendments to the Constitution were "enacted" by Congress. Taxation was shifted from Corporations to the individual Citizen and it was done for a particular reason. That reason can be found in the Federal Reserves own publications, which is, in itself, amazing!

"The United States is a NATIONAL STATE, which has a central banking system, the Federal Reserve System, and whose currency, for domestic purposes, is not convertible into any commodity. It follows that our Federal Government has final freedom from the money market in meeting its financial requirements. Accordingly, the inevitable social and economic consequences of any and all taxes have now become the prime consideration in the imposition of taxes. In general, it may be said that since all taxes have consequences of a social and economic character, the government should look to these consequences in formulating its tax policy. All federal taxes must meet the test of public policy and practical effect. The public purpose, which is served, should never be obscured in a tax program under the mask of raising revenue."



Concerning the use of Taxation for the Distribution of Wealth, Former Fed Chairman Ruml was very clear: 



"The second principal purpose of federal taxes is to attain more equality of wealth and of income than would result from economic forces working alone. The taxes, which are effective for this purpose, are the progressive individual income tax, the progressive estate tax, and the gift tax. What these taxes should be depends on public policy with respect to the distribution of wealth and of income. It is important, here, to note that the estate and gift taxes have little or no significance, as tax measures, for stabilizing the value of the dollar. Their purpose is the social purpose of preventing what otherwise would be high concentration of wealth and income at a few points, as a result of investment and reinvestment of income not expended in meeting day-to-day consumption requirements. These taxes should be defended and attacked it terms of their effects on the character of American life, not as revenue measures."

"The necessity for a government to tax in order to maintain both its independence and its solvency is true for state and local governments, but it is not true for a national government. Two changes of the greatest consequence have occurred in the last twenty-five years, which have substantially altered the position of the national state with respect to the financing of its current requirements. The first of these changes is the gaining of vast new experience in the management of central banks. The second change is the elimination, for domestic purposes, of the convertibility of the currency into gold."

All of these factors, including the creation of the Welfare/Warfare State and State Corporatism that began in earnest during the Roosevelt Administration have brought us to where we are today.

The State and Statism always nurtures a synergy with Corporatism because they are of the same parasitic bloodline seeking to oppress a population under both political and economic controls.

Concerning Dr. Paul's stance, read many of his speeches before the House and I think you will find that he is on the side of the People, not Corporatism and its so-called "Free Market Agenda".