I say they should take their marching orders from… THE CONSTITUTION!
U-S-A!! U-S-A!! U-S-A!!
And that brings it all back to my point: Ron Paul is an indictment of our entire political landscape. This guy has some really screwed up views on economics, race, the role of government, or whatever issue you choose, that if most people knew about they would be turned off him. But many of his views on foreign policy strongly resonate with people because there is a massive hole in our political discourse which Paul dutifully fills. I mean hell, I even saw some semi-popular pro Ron Paul diaries on friggin’ Daily Kos! At least we have Kucinich and Gravel…but for the right, Ron Paul is it. That is so sad.
Which brings up one question – how soon until a sane anti-eternal war candidate with a sensible social policy pokes his head up in a GOP convention and wins the presidential race in a landslide? Maybe not this cycle, but in the near future. Or is that just impossible?
I have a pal who is the bluest blue stater you have ever seen. He is midnight blue. He is darn near purple. He is in love with Ron Paul.
I wish I could take Ron Paul’s heart and put it in some of these other candidates’ bodies.
Poor John McCain. His candidacy is so dead, the other guys are taking advantage of his corpse, heaping praise over his coffin so as to appear collegial.
I’m also anti-gay, anti-abortion, pro-gun, and pro-Jesus — with respect to myself. I think maybe people aren’t used to a live and let live mentality in politicians. As far as dismantling the redundant (and gargantuan) alphabet agencies, I can’t think of anything that would do more good toward empowering our government to secure our rights. The FDA partners with drug companies to deny us access to life-saving drugs while foisting upon us drugs that will kill us. FEMA is a laughingstock. And the Department of Education, which hasn’t educated a single person, exists for the sole purpose of sucking up money and spitting (some of) it back out. Just because you create a giant agency and flush it with cash doesn’t mean it will solve anything. Now you may disagree — and you probably do — but that doesn’t mean that the people with whom you disagree are dumber or in any way worse than you. I think that’s a big part of what’s wrong with the political landscape in America: oh my God, he disagrees with me on fundamental issues, so he must be a dangerous loon!
Ron Paul isn’t a dangerous loon. He’s a harmless crank. Let’s not make things out to be anything other than what they are.
WTF? You dolt.
Paul’s idea of getting the federal government out of the business of protecting your rights from the tyranny of local bigots is no different than the social conservative aganeda that has occupied the GOP. . . it IS the social conservative agenda that has occupied the GOP.
Without decisions on Constitutional law that provide otherwise, you’d find religious displays on public property in every little shit pocket from Maine to San Diego and entire swaths of the country where you couldn’t get a legal abortion, a same-sex marriage or blowjob for thousands of miles (right now we’ve managed to winnow this wasteland to Mississippi - 'cept of course the SSM part). If this is what you want, fine, but don’t call it a change for Christ’s sake. It makes you look dumb.
Yeah, God knows the mainstream ideas have worked so well. That’s why all the candidates are saying “Let’s don’t change anything.”
I don’t think he’s advocated getting rid of the federal courts, has he?
I agree he’s a harmless crank. He’s a Libertarian disguised as a Republican, claiming he represents the true Republican party. Bull-fucking-shit. The train left the station on that platform generations ago. He’s no more a “true Republican” than a southern segregationist is a “true Democrat”. He’s like a modern day libertarian who insists that he’s actually a liberal. 
But he does add a lot of interest to the debates, even if he’s tilting at windmills. Sort of like Jesse Jackson did. I disagreed with most of JJ’s positions, but I miss him in the Democratic debates because he at least held consistent positions on the issues and didn’t get all wishy-washy to avoid controversy.
Well, can we at least agree that Sean Hannity is a pussy?
pantheon wrote that his law “would forbid federal courts (including the Supreme Court) from hearing cases on subjects such as the display of religious text and imagery on government property, abortion, sexual practices, and same-sex marriage, would make federal court decisions on those subjects non-binding as precedent in state courts, and would forbid federal courts from spending any money to enforce their judgments.” Relieving federal courts of their ability to review the consitutuionality of state action greatly reduces their workoads. My point was that this would accomplish the “agenda” whilst hoodwinking turnipseeds into thinking that they were somehow GETTING rights back, what with the Feds staying out of it and all.
I think there must have been some misunderstanding or miscommunication.
easily. done and done. the most irritating blowhard on the radio/TV. You’re a good American, Lib.
Someone’s going to punch him someday, and on that day YouTube will finally be laid low.
I haven’t seen too much of him, but he seems more like a self-promoting bully to me. I thought Giuliani was the pussy in your OP.
Yes. Hannity is the bully, and Colmes is the pussy.
He was the asshole. Keep those orifices straight or you may be in for trouble someday.
Damn, I always confuse the asshole with the pussy. No wonder my GF keeps slapping me all the time.
Actually, I re-read the OP before that last post and completely missed it. You’re right, Hannity is the pussy and RG is the asshole. Have you ever noticed that Sean Hannity’s initials are the same as… Saddam Hussein!!!
That’s fine, you can vote for Ron Paul in the primaries then. I was simply answering your question, which was asking why he doesn’t get an opportunity to talk about those other issues. The main reason is because his foreign policy is of most interest and seems to draw the most support for him, even from places you wouldn’t expect. But the other reason is because his social policies are in line with the rest of the GOP field and thus mostly uninteresting when contrasted with the former point. Especially since, as a lower tier candidate, he doesn’t get as much time as the others. “Yeah, yeah, gays are icky, we get it – could you go back to the part about not randomly invading countries or spending 500 billion a year on the military?”
As for his views on the role of government, I’m sure Grover Norquist and David Stockman would be quite supportive, especially with the elimination of the income tax, going back to the gold standard, and abolishing the New Deal and all the regulatory and oversight agencies built up over the last century. I agree some of our government agencies have problems, but instead of drowning them in the tub and going back to 1880 maybe we should try to reform them and bring them in line with the rest of the Western industrialized nations. YMMV. First step: get rid of the career “Bushies.”
I can’t vote in the primary because I’m registered Libertarian. But how you get that his social policies are “in line with” the other Republicans is beyond me. I think you’re failing to distinguish his personal preferences from his policy theories. Just because I think gay sex is icky doesn’t mean I want gays to have no rights. Same same for him or anyone. I can’t help that my body reacts the way it does to the notion of sucking on a man’s penis, but I can understand why another man would react with attraction to it — he’s not me.