Ron Paul could have won this election.....

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for Jebus213
#1 Posted by Jebus213 (10011 posts) -
if he were the Republican nominee. Without a doubt he could have one this.
Avatar image for danjammer69
#2 Posted by danjammer69 (4283 posts) -
[QUOTE="Jebus213"]if he were the Republican nominee. Without a doubt he could have one this.

You are nuts man. Elections cost money. Especially election wins. Ron Paul could never had raised the amount of money that Romney or Obama did.
Avatar image for Jebus213
#3 Posted by Jebus213 (10011 posts) -
[QUOTE="danjammer69"][QUOTE="Jebus213"]if he were the Republican nominee. Without a doubt he could have one this.

You are nuts man. Elections cost money. Especially election wins. Ron Paul could never had raised the amount of money that Romney or Obama did.

Lies.
Avatar image for XaosII
#4 Posted by XaosII (16705 posts) -

Ron Paul is too radical for the American public to win even if he were the Republican nominee.

Avatar image for MakeMeaSammitch
#5 Posted by MakeMeaSammitch (4889 posts) -

No, he wants to gut the military to near uselessness. Most conservatives support the military.

Avatar image for jimkabrhel
#6 Posted by jimkabrhel (15625 posts) -

Ron Paul is too radical for the American public to win even if he were the Republican nominee.

XaosII

Avatar image for sexyweapons
#7 Posted by sexyweapons (5302 posts) -

[QUOTE="Jebus213"]if he were the Republican nominee. Without a doubt he could have one this.danjammer69
You are nuts man. Elections cost money. Especially election wins. Ron Paul could never had raised the amount of money that Romney or Obama did.

I don't know about that man

he receivedheck of alot of money in the primaries.

Avatar image for whipassmt
#8 Posted by whipassmt (15375 posts) -

I don't think he could win. I would've voted for him over Obutthead, but Ron Paul is one of the guys I least wanted to win the nomination (down there with Huntsman and Johnson, and at one point I was hoping it wouldn't be Romney, though I started to like him better as time passed).

Avatar image for MakeMeaSammitch
#9 Posted by MakeMeaSammitch (4889 posts) -

[QUOTE="danjammer69"][QUOTE="Jebus213"]if he were the Republican nominee. Without a doubt he could have one this.sexyweapons

You are nuts man. Elections cost money. Especially election wins. Ron Paul could never had raised the amount of money that Romney or Obama did.

I don't know about that man

he receivedheck of alot of money in the primaries.

People would have inevitably dropped him once they found about him opposing that cancer medication....

Avatar image for Jebus213
#10 Posted by Jebus213 (10011 posts) -
Ron Paul is one of the guys I least wanted to win the nomination (down there with Huntsman and Johnsonwhipassmt
*looks at sig* Yeah no wonder.
Avatar image for Stevo_the_gamer
#11 Posted by Stevo_the_gamer (44839 posts) -
No chance. He's no moderate.
Avatar image for Laihendi
#12 Posted by Laihendi (5876 posts) -
[QUOTE="danjammer69"][QUOTE="Jebus213"]if he were the Republican nominee. Without a doubt he could have one this.

You are nuts man. Elections cost money. Especially election wins. Ron Paul could never had raised the amount of money that Romney or Obama did.

Ron Paul broke fund-raising records fairly frequently in his 2008 and 2012 runs.
Avatar image for Laihendi
#13 Posted by Laihendi (5876 posts) -
No chance. He's no moderate.Stevo_the_gamer
According to the standards set by our constitution, Ron Paul is a moderate and Obama/Romney are extremists.
Avatar image for XaosII
#14 Posted by XaosII (16705 posts) -

[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]No chance. He's no moderate.Laihendi
According to the standards set by our constitution, Ron Paul is a moderate and Obama/Romney are extremists.

I dont think anyone cares anachronistic definitions of moderate and extremist. Ron Paul is not a moderate.

Avatar image for whipassmt
#15 Posted by whipassmt (15375 posts) -

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]Ron Paul is one of the guys I least wanted to win the nomination (down there with Huntsman and JohnsonJebus213
*looks at sig* Yeah no wonder.

Even though my sig doesn't really have anything to do with Romney, Hunstman, Johnson and Ron Paul.

Avatar image for themajormayor
#16 Posted by themajormayor (25536 posts) -
Close thread
Avatar image for nocoolnamejim
#17 Posted by nocoolnamejim (15136 posts) -
[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]No chance. He's no moderate.Laihendi
According to the standards set by our constitution, Ron Paul is a moderate and Obama/Romney are extremists.

Oh really?
Avatar image for perfect_blue
#18 Posted by Perfect_Blue (29921 posts) -

I don't think a racist bigot like Paul could have won anything.

Avatar image for sexyweapons
#19 Posted by sexyweapons (5302 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]No chance. He's no moderate.nocoolnamejim
According to the standards set by our constitution, Ron Paul is a moderate and Obama/Romney are extremists.

Oh really?

Good thing we can rely on you to produce a TOTALLY none biased source Jim!

Avatar image for sexyweapons
#20 Posted by sexyweapons (5302 posts) -

I don't think a racist bigot like Paul could have won anything.

Aljosa23

Romney got pretty close.

Avatar image for nocoolnamejim
#21 Posted by nocoolnamejim (15136 posts) -

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] According to the standards set by our constitution, Ron Paul is a moderate and Obama/Romney are extremists.sexyweapons

Oh really?

Good thing we can rely on you to produce a TOTALLY none biased source Jim!

It's Ron Paul speaking in his own words on camera. What, exactly, is your objection to the source? That I let Ron Paul speak for himself?
Avatar image for perfect_blue
#22 Posted by Perfect_Blue (29921 posts) -

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

I don't think a racist bigot like Paul could have won anything.

sexyweapons

Romney got pretty close.

I don't know if I'd call Mitt Romney a racist. To my knowledge he didn't write and publish a bunch of newsletters like RP.

Avatar image for Jebus213
#23 Posted by Jebus213 (10011 posts) -

[QUOTE="Jebus213"][QUOTE="whipassmt"]Ron Paul is one of the guys I least wanted to win the nomination (down there with Huntsman and Johnsonwhipassmt

*looks at sig* Yeah no wonder.

Even though my sig doesn't really have anything to do with Romney, Hunstman, Johnson and Ron Paul.

It does, but I'm not going share.
Avatar image for Zeviander
#24 Posted by Zeviander (9503 posts) -
I doubt he would have had the ideological platform to get the Evangelical vote.
Avatar image for sexyweapons
#25 Posted by sexyweapons (5302 posts) -

[QUOTE="sexyweapons"]

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

I don't think a racist bigot like Paul could have won anything.

Aljosa23

Romney got pretty close.

To my knowledge he didn't write and publish a bunch of newsletters like RP.

:lol:

Avatar image for sexyweapons
#26 Posted by sexyweapons (5302 posts) -

[QUOTE="Jebus213"][QUOTE="whipassmt"]Ron Paul is one of the guys I least wanted to win the nomination (down there with Huntsman and Johnsonwhipassmt

*looks at sig* Yeah no wonder.

Even though my sig doesn't really have anything to do with Romney, Hunstman, Johnson and Ron Paul.

Yes it does.

Avatar image for nocoolnamejim
#27 Posted by nocoolnamejim (15136 posts) -
sexyweapons: Sorry! I misunderstood your previous post.
Avatar image for Stevo_the_gamer
#28 Posted by Stevo_the_gamer (44839 posts) -

To my knowledge he didn't write and publish a bunch of newsletters like RP.

Aljosa23

facepalm.gif

Avatar image for Laihendi
#29 Posted by Laihendi (5876 posts) -
[QUOTE="sexyweapons"]

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] Oh really?nocoolnamejim

Good thing we can rely on you to produce a TOTALLY none biased source Jim!

It's Ron Paul speaking in his own words on camera. What, exactly, is your objection to the source? That I let Ron Paul speak for himself?

Your video cannot be taken seriously at all. It has plenty of clips of him saying what he thinks is unconstitutional, but then it cuts him off before he gets around to explaining why he thinks those things are unconstitutional. If you consider that video to be a legitimate criticism of his interpretation of the constitution, then I don't even know what to say.
Avatar image for nocoolnamejim
#30 Posted by nocoolnamejim (15136 posts) -
[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="sexyweapons"]

Good thing we can rely on you to produce a TOTALLY none biased source Jim!

Laihendi
It's Ron Paul speaking in his own words on camera. What, exactly, is your objection to the source? That I let Ron Paul speak for himself?

Your video cannot be taken seriously at all. It has plenty of clips of him saying what he thinks is unconstitutional, but then it cuts him off before he gets around to explaining why he thinks those things are unconstitutional. If you consider that video to be a legitimate criticism of his interpretation of the constitution, then I don't even know what to say.

The fact he finds all those things unconstitutional at all is evidence that he's an extremist. Pretty much everything he finds unconstitutional is utterly uncontroversial. Ron Paulists may not like it, but the views in that video REGARDLESS OF EXPLANATION make him an extremist by modern day political standards. Things like Social Security and Medicare and the Income Tax and paper money...they're not going anywhere. They've been in place for decades or, in some cases, for centuries.
Avatar image for hoola
#31 Posted by hoola (6422 posts) -

[QUOTE="danjammer69"][QUOTE="Jebus213"]if he were the Republican nominee. Without a doubt he could have one this.Jebus213
You are nuts man. Elections cost money. Especially election wins. Ron Paul could never had raised the amount of money that Romney or Obama did.

Lies.

Its true. The bankers and ultra large corporations hate him because he doesn't put up with their crap. Obama and Romney on the other hand are loved by the lobbyists and banks because they will give free goodies to them. He would never raise as much money as them.

Avatar image for Laihendi
#32 Posted by Laihendi (5876 posts) -
[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] It's Ron Paul speaking in his own words on camera. What, exactly, is your objection to the source? That I let Ron Paul speak for himself?

Your video cannot be taken seriously at all. It has plenty of clips of him saying what he thinks is unconstitutional, but then it cuts him off before he gets around to explaining why he thinks those things are unconstitutional. If you consider that video to be a legitimate criticism of his interpretation of the constitution, then I don't even know what to say.

The fact he finds all those things unconstitutional at all is evidence that he's an extremist. Pretty much everything he finds unconstitutional is utterly uncontroversial. Ron Paulists may not like it, but the views in that video REGARDLESS OF EXPLANATION make him an extremist by modern day political standards. Things like Social Security and Medicare and the Income Tax and paper money...they're not going anywhere. They've been in place for decades or, in some cases, for centuries.

You linked that video in response to me saying that Ron Paul was a moderate according to the standards set by the constitution. I'm not talking about the standards set by the mainstream media, socialist populist politicians, or the masses. It's a lot harder to use the constitution to criticize Ron Paul than it is to use it to criticize someone like Obama.
Avatar image for nocoolnamejim
#33 Posted by nocoolnamejim (15136 posts) -
[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] Your video cannot be taken seriously at all. It has plenty of clips of him saying what he thinks is unconstitutional, but then it cuts him off before he gets around to explaining why he thinks those things are unconstitutional. If you consider that video to be a legitimate criticism of his interpretation of the constitution, then I don't even know what to say.

The fact he finds all those things unconstitutional at all is evidence that he's an extremist. Pretty much everything he finds unconstitutional is utterly uncontroversial. Ron Paulists may not like it, but the views in that video REGARDLESS OF EXPLANATION make him an extremist by modern day political standards. Things like Social Security and Medicare and the Income Tax and paper money...they're not going anywhere. They've been in place for decades or, in some cases, for centuries.

You linked that video in response to me saying that Ron Paul was a moderate according to the standards set by the constitution. I'm not talking about the standards set by the mainstream media, socialist populist politicians, or the masses. It's a lot harder to use the constitution to criticize Ron Paul than it is to use it to criticize someone like Obama.

Okay then. You're a Ron Paul supporter. There are 15 things Ron Paul mentions as being unconstitutional in that video. You complain that the video doesn't have his explanations for WHY they are unconstitutional (though in the cases of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid it does). Explain why those 15 things are unconstitutional.
Avatar image for XaosII
#34 Posted by XaosII (16705 posts) -

Okay then. You're a Ron Paul supporter. There are 15 things Ron Paul mentions as being unconstitutional in that video. You complain that the video doesn't have his explanations for WHY they are unconstitutional (though in the cases of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid it does). Explain why those 15 things are unconstitutional. nocoolnamejim

Isn't it obvious? The government isnt given the authority by the Constitution to do those things. There isn't anywhere in the Constituion that says the federal government should mandate standard for education or anyting else of the 15 thing he's mentioned.

Don't get me wrong, i think it would crazy remove most of the things he's listed... But he isn't wrong.

Avatar image for nocoolnamejim
#35 Posted by nocoolnamejim (15136 posts) -

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] Okay then. You're a Ron Paul supporter. There are 15 things Ron Paul mentions as being unconstitutional in that video. You complain that the video doesn't have his explanations for WHY they are unconstitutional (though in the cases of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid it does). Explain why those 15 things are unconstitutional. XaosII

Isn't it obvious? The government isnt given the authority by the Constitution to do those things. There isn't anywhere in the Constituion that says the federal government should mandate standard for education or anyting else of the 15 thing he's mentioned.

Don't get me wrong, i think it would crazy remove most of the things he's listed... But he isn't wrong.

Two schools of thought with regards to the Constitution. One school says that the Federal government can't do anything it isn't explicitly allowed to do in the Constitution. The other school says it can do anything that isn't explicitly forbidden from doing. I'd argue the latter view is the one that allows a government to function and adapt over long periods of time.
Avatar image for Laihendi
#36 Posted by Laihendi (5876 posts) -
[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] The fact he finds all those things unconstitutional at all is evidence that he's an extremist. Pretty much everything he finds unconstitutional is utterly uncontroversial. Ron Paulists may not like it, but the views in that video REGARDLESS OF EXPLANATION make him an extremist by modern day political standards. Things like Social Security and Medicare and the Income Tax and paper money...they're not going anywhere. They've been in place for decades or, in some cases, for centuries.

You linked that video in response to me saying that Ron Paul was a moderate according to the standards set by the constitution. I'm not talking about the standards set by the mainstream media, socialist populist politicians, or the masses. It's a lot harder to use the constitution to criticize Ron Paul than it is to use it to criticize someone like Obama.

Okay then. You're a Ron Paul supporter. There are 15 things Ron Paul mentions as being unconstitutional in that video. You complain that the video doesn't have his explanations for WHY they are unconstitutional (though in the cases of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid it does). Explain why those 15 things are unconstitutional.

:lol: Considering you're the one making an issue out of those things and making the claim that what he's saying is wrong, I'll leave the burden of proof on you.
Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
#37 Posted by LJS9502_basic (161929 posts) -

Ron Paul is too radical for the American public to win even if he were the Republican nominee.

XaosII
If by radical you mean borderline crazy.....
Avatar image for JoGoSo
#38 Posted by JoGoSo (441 posts) -

I'm sure the hookers & drugs planks would rally the base like never before.

Avatar image for nocoolnamejim
#39 Posted by nocoolnamejim (15136 posts) -
[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] You linked that video in response to me saying that Ron Paul was a moderate according to the standards set by the constitution. I'm not talking about the standards set by the mainstream media, socialist populist politicians, or the masses. It's a lot harder to use the constitution to criticize Ron Paul than it is to use it to criticize someone like Obama.

Okay then. You're a Ron Paul supporter. There are 15 things Ron Paul mentions as being unconstitutional in that video. You complain that the video doesn't have his explanations for WHY they are unconstitutional (though in the cases of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid it does). Explain why those 15 things are unconstitutional.

:lol: Considering you're the one making an issue out of those things and making the claim that what he's saying is wrong, I'll leave the burden of proof on you.

Actually, no. You started this by claiming that Obama/Romney are extremists and Paul is a moderate. I posted a video showing him wanting pretty much every facet of modern day government eliminated because they are unconstitutional. These are positions well outside the mainstream. You then objected because the video didn't allow Ron Paul to explain WHY he thought all those things are unconstitutional. I'm giving you, a Paul supporter, a chance to fill in the blanks. It's not my fault that that when challenged you can't back up your talk. And TC: I'm well aware that you posted this thread just to rile up the Paulbots. I shall have my vengeance. In this life or the next.
Avatar image for whipassmt
#40 Posted by whipassmt (15375 posts) -

[QUOTE="XaosII"]

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] Okay then. You're a Ron Paul supporter. There are 15 things Ron Paul mentions as being unconstitutional in that video. You complain that the video doesn't have his explanations for WHY they are unconstitutional (though in the cases of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid it does). Explain why those 15 things are unconstitutional. nocoolnamejim

Isn't it obvious? The government isnt given the authority by the Constitution to do those things. There isn't anywhere in the Constituion that says the federal government should mandate standard for education or anyting else of the 15 thing he's mentioned.

Don't get me wrong, i think it would crazy remove most of the things he's listed... But he isn't wrong.

Two schools of thought with regards to the Constitution. One school says that the Federal government can't do anything it isn't explicitly allowed to do in the Constitution. The other school says it can do anything that isn't explicitly forbidden from doing. I'd argue the latter view is the one that allows a government to function and adapt over long periods of time.

I would actually say that both schools are wrong. I think the government has powers that aren't explicitly delineated but it doesn't have the power to do anything that is not specifically forbideen either.

Avatar image for Abbeten
#41 Posted by Abbeten (3140 posts) -
SCOTUS has ruled on basically all of those things he listed and found them Constitutional.
Avatar image for Laihendi
#42 Posted by Laihendi (5876 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"]

Okay then. You're a Ron Paul supporter.

There are 15 things Ron Paul mentions as being unconstitutional in that video. You complain that the video doesn't have his explanations for WHY they are unconstitutional (though in the cases of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid it does).

Explain why those 15 things are unconstitutional. nocoolnamejim


:lol: Considering you're the one making an issue out of those things and making the claim that what he's saying is wrong, I'll leave the burden of proof on you.

Actually, no. You started this by claiming that Obama/Romney are extremists and Paul is a moderate. I posted a video showing him wanting pretty much every facet of modern day government eliminated because they are unconstitutional. These are positions well outside the mainstream.

You then objected because the video didn't allow Ron Paul to explain WHY he thought all those things are unconstitutional.

I'm giving you, a Paul supporter, a chance to fill in the blanks. It's not my fault that that when challenged you can't back up your talk.

And TC: I'm well aware that you posted this thread just to rile up the Paulbots. I shall have my vengeance. In this life or the next.


Considering how out of context and brief those video clips are, it's difficult to tell what he's even saying. For example, at one point he says "It's clearly unconstitutional to issue these executive orders", and then a little sign appears stating that Ron Paul thinks executive orders are unconstitutional, even though it appears he was talking about specific executive orders rather than executive orders in general. We can't tell for sure though, since that entire clip lasts about 3 seconds.

Concerning paper money: Article 1, section 10No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

Though the allegation against Ron Paul is still misleading, because he has no problem with using paper as long as they're backed up by gold/silver.

If you find something that's more than a collection of 3-5 second video clips that are devoid of any context (so basically if you find something that has any meaning) then maybe it will be possible to form a response to it.

Avatar image for Abbeten
#43 Posted by Abbeten (3140 posts) -
'no state'
Avatar image for whipassmt
#44 Posted by whipassmt (15375 posts) -

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="Laihendi"]
:lol: Considering you're the one making an issue out of those things and making the claim that what he's saying is wrong, I'll leave the burden of proof on you.Laihendi

Actually, no. You started this by claiming that Obama/Romney are extremists and Paul is a moderate. I posted a video showing him wanting pretty much every facet of modern day government eliminated because they are unconstitutional. These are positions well outside the mainstream.

You then objected because the video didn't allow Ron Paul to explain WHY he thought all those things are unconstitutional.

I'm giving you, a Paul supporter, a chance to fill in the blanks. It's not my fault that that when challenged you can't back up your talk.

And TC: I'm well aware that you posted this thread just to rile up the Paulbots. I shall have my vengeance. In this life or the next.


Considering how out of context and brief those video clips are, it's difficult to tell what he's even saying. For example, at one point he says "It's clearly unconstitutional to issue these executive orders", and then a little sign appears stating that Ron Paul thinks executive orders are unconstitutional, even though it appears he was talking about specific executive orders rather than executive orders in general. We can't tell for sure though, since that entire clip lasts about 3 seconds.

Concerning paper money: Article 1, section 10No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

Though the allegation against Ron Paul is still misleading, because he has no problem with using paper as long as they're backed up by gold/silver.

If you find something that's more than a collection of 3-5 second video clips that are devoid of any context (so basically if you find something that has any meaning) then maybe it will be possible to form a response to it.

They should get rid of the "grant any Title of Nobility", I don't see why states shouldn't be able to do so, I mean they should make me "Supreme and Highest Count, Duke of the State and Earl of America".

Avatar image for nocoolnamejim
#45 Posted by nocoolnamejim (15136 posts) -

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="Laihendi"]
:lol: Considering you're the one making an issue out of those things and making the claim that what he's saying is wrong, I'll leave the burden of proof on you.Laihendi

Actually, no. You started this by claiming that Obama/Romney are extremists and Paul is a moderate. I posted a video showing him wanting pretty much every facet of modern day government eliminated because they are unconstitutional. These are positions well outside the mainstream.

You then objected because the video didn't allow Ron Paul to explain WHY he thought all those things are unconstitutional.

I'm giving you, a Paul supporter, a chance to fill in the blanks. It's not my fault that that when challenged you can't back up your talk.

And TC: I'm well aware that you posted this thread just to rile up the Paulbots. I shall have my vengeance. In this life or the next.


Considering how out of context and brief those video clips are, it's difficult to tell what he's even saying. For example, at one point he says "It's clearly unconstitutional to issue these executive orders", and then a little sign appears stating that Ron Paul thinks executive orders are unconstitutional, even though it appears he was talking about specific executive orders rather than executive orders in general. We can't tell for sure though, since that entire clip lasts about 3 seconds.

Concerning paper money: Article 1, section 10No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

Though the allegation against Ron Paul is still misleading, because he has no problem with using paper as long as they're backed up by gold/silver.

If you find something that's more than a collection of 3-5 second video clips that are devoid of any context (so basically if you find something that has any meaning) then maybe it will be possible to form a response to it.

I'm sorry that I quoted Ron Paul in his own words claiming virtually everything that modern society is based on is unconstitutional. That was really unfair of me. :lol: It's not up to me to explain why Ron Paul finds all those things unconstitutional and is calling for the abolition of pretty much every government department that exists. I'm not a Ron Paul supporter. Why are you asking me to tell YOU why he finds these things unconstitutional and wants them eliminated? Shouldn't you be more familiar with his positions than I am? Though, I acknowledge the point about paper money. He does advocate a return to the gold standard, which is also a lunatic position...but you're right that overall Paul has no problem with paper money in and of itself. But here's the thing: As Abbeten mentioned, the Supreme Court (which, contrary to Ron Paul supporters' belief is the ultimate authority over issues of constitutionality, not Ron Paul) has ruled on pretty much everything on that list. Which means that Ron Paul is really nothing more than a demented old nutcase who does happen to have a few good ideas here and there.
Avatar image for deactivated-59f03d6ce656b
#46 Posted by deactivated-59f03d6ce656b (2944 posts) -
No......
Avatar image for Nonstop-Madness
#47 Posted by Nonstop-Madness (9845 posts) -
No, he ******* couldn't have. Getting rid of things like minimum wage, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, EPA etc. etc. etc. is going to piss off a ton of people even Republicans.
Avatar image for Laihendi
#48 Posted by Laihendi (5876 posts) -

'no state'Abbeten
Yes, and right now all 50 states are breaking that rule.

Avatar image for Abbeten
#49 Posted by Abbeten (3140 posts) -

[QUOTE="Abbeten"]'no state'Laihendi

Yes, and right now all 50 states are breaking that rule.

No they aren't. The federal government is the entity that authorizes fiat money to be used as legal tender, not the states.
Avatar image for DaBrainz
#50 Posted by DaBrainz (7906 posts) -
He would have no chance of winning. I would of voted for him though.