He’s different, I’ll give you that.
Promoting personal liberty except for the choice of doing what we want with our own bodies (rabidly anti-abortion), peace with a well armed populace (no restrictions whatsoever on the right to bear arms), following the rule of law from 200+ years ago (civil rights was a mistake), and an economic system of anarcho-capitalism that favours the wealthy and lets everyone else starve or die.
The 2nd amendment has the phrase “well regulated” in it. How you can say that there is not restrictions is beyond me. There should only be restrictions on those who have proven they cannot be trusted with firearms-violent criminals, for example. There should be no restrictions on law abiding citizens. It is well documented that societies that are well armed have lower crime rates. Take a look at Switzerland. Nazi Germany avoided invading there for a reason.
Yes, there are things in the original constitution that are flat out wrong. That is why there is an amendment process that can repeal or change the constitution as society changes. Paul WANTS that process to be followed. No where did he say that he wants the civil rights act to be repealed.
The economic system we have NOW favors the wealthy. Look at the increase in the gap between rich and poor in the last 11 years!!! Paul wants to eliminate all the tax loopholes and subsidies (paid for by us) given to companies that are already hugely profitable. Most of that money goes to the company upper management, not to the non-management employee.
True capitalism has laws/regulations that promote competition and free trade while punishing fraud, breaking up monopolies and collusion (price fixing), and having sound enviornmental regulation. It has nothing in common with anarchy. Anarchy literally means no rules, no law, no authority. No one is advocating that.
Yep, made it up. Kinda proud of it, actually.
Well, he sure doesn’t seem to like it very much. Frankly, if he thinks that a piece of legislation didn’t accomplish its goals and reduced liberty, but he doesn’t want to repeal it, then that makes him a piss-poor legislator, especially if he’s going to claim to be for “small government”.
Dick Cheney has demonstrated that one does not need a pulse to continue. So you all are warned… 
…and a join date of June 2011. Shocking.
-Joe
[trivia mode]
Most Dopers probably already know this, but this is literally true, not just a joke. Cheney has a new style of artificial heart which pumps blood continuously, not in discrete beats like a natural one.
Ron Paul is 200 years old, and he’s a perennial candidate. He got crushed last time around. Unless you can present a compelling reason to believe that Republicans are going to move to his side like they never have before your posts are nothing more than cheerleading for him.
Watching the GOP debate. Its basically Romney and some schmucks. Actually seeing them all on stage, its pretty hard to picture anyone else being the nominee. Indeed, the lack of ‘real’ candidates is really weird, even Pawlenty seems kinda out-there.
Also went to Youtube and flipped through some of the earlier Dem debates. The contrast is pretty stark. In the GOP, almost every answer is a direct attack on Obama, in the 2007 Dem debates, there’s lot of discussion of “change” and such that are obviously meant to contrast the candidate favorably with Bush, but almost no one actually attacks Bush, or even refers to him (except when Iraq comes up). This despite the fact that Bush was a lot more unpopular in 2007 then Obama is now.
There seems to have also been some agreement that they won’t be asked questions about each other. It’s not really a debate at all, in that they’re not being asked to argue about anything, but just take turns bashing Obama. Their answers on DADT were ridiculous as well. When are these assholes going to learn that the fag bashing is a losing issue for them now?
Pawlenty got asked a question about Romney-care (which he totally failed to capitalize on) so if there’s an agreement, the host isn’t taking it too seriously. But the candidates do seem to be going out of their way not to attack , or even acknowledge each other.
Also regarding the debate, where was John Huntsman and Gary Johnson? If your already having trouble with name-recognition, seems kinda silly to skip out on the first debate (well, I guess its the second debate, but the first one with all the major candidates)
ETA: According to wikipedia, Huntsman declined the invitation to appear, and Johnson wasn’t invited. Seems kinda silly, Johnson’s a longshot, but not anymore so then Santorum, and probably less so then Cain.
And really weird for Huntsman to decline, as I said, its not like he can afford to pass up opportuniites to get his face infront of primary voters. I wonder if he’s already throwing in the towel?
Actually, True Capitalism existed before any of those things were invented or conceived.
But not long before.
Bachmann’s the obvious debate winner. She looked good, conducted herself well and trumped the field with her announcement - great theater!
The rest of the pack is overexposed and redundant. They all repeat the same, tired whine - “Good or bad we have to replace Obama”.
When they have beat that message to a pulp, Palin will enter the fray and, by then, even Palin will sound good.
Crane
So how do folks end up in debates before they officially announce they’re running?
They get invited.
Crane
Same way Bachmann did? Hell, did Ron Paul ever actually announce he was running, or did everyone just assume out of habit?
-Joe
He announced. I think everyone except Huntsman has announced now.
Did Romney announce? I missed that.
And debates are usually presented as “A debate between the Republican candidates for President”, not “A debate between a bunch of folks who we think might eventually get around to running for President”. It seems odd, to me, to invite folks who aren’t officially running, or for someone to accept without first officially announcing they’re running.
Since they had to cancel the first one due to lack of interest, it may be a debate among those willing to show up.
Crane