Ron Paul 2012!!! Your thoughts on who we should pick for our "Cause"?

[DiscoBiscuit]

Ron looks tired. Better tell itisme to use photoshop, otherwise he'll wrench his neck.

Damn, I thought you were kidding. It does say something! It says, "If I'm elected, I'll be older than Reagan was when he left office."

 

[Plant Early]

It's not a photo. It's artwork.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

from a photo

 

[zymos]

Photos can be art!

 

[CannaBunkerMan]

I'm so glad disco found a friend.

 

[mrcreosote]

You mean besides the guy on another weed site who asked:

"Ron Paul? Wasn't he the drummer for Led Zep?"

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

his dad, maybe

 

[MadBuddhaAbuser]

Geez... I've addressed this already, but hey...

We're not in the '60s, '70s, or '80s. Times are changing, whether you realize it or not. An increasing number of states are implementing medical marijuana laws and/or decriminalizing, and more than half the population believes cannabis should be legalized. These are fundamental differences from the '60s, '70s, and '80s.

Really?

(sorry for being lazy and wikipediaing it but.....)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decriminalization_of_non-medical_cannabis_in_the_United_States

After the 1960s, an era characterized by widespread use of cannabis as a recreational drug, a wave of legislation in United States sought to reduce the penalties for the simple possession of cannabis, making it punishable by confiscation and a fine rather than imprisonment or more severe charges.

In 1972, President Richard Nixon commissioned a study on cannabis use from the National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse.[2] The Commission found that the constitutionality of cannabis prohibition was suspect, and that the executive and legislative branches had a responsibility to obey the Constitution, even in the absence of a court ruling to do so. The Nixon administration did not implement the study's recommendations. However, the report has frequently been cited by individuals supporting removal of cannabis from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act.[citation needed]

In 1973, Oregon became the first state to decriminalize cannabis possession.[3] By 1978 Alaska, California, Colorado, Mississippi, New York, Nebraska, North Carolina, and Ohio had some form of cannabis decriminalization.[4] Certain cities and counties, particularly in California, have adopted laws to further decriminalize cannabis.

In 1974, A Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, chaired by Sen. James O. Eastland on The Marijuana-hashish epidemic and its impact on United States security state that evidence accumulated by scientific researchers on cannabis had turned dramatically against this drug.[5][6]
[edit] Attempts to decriminalize cannabis

In recent history, there have been multiple unsuccessful attempts to decriminalize cannabis:

In 1974 Dr Robert DuPont, the White House drug czar, began to publicly support decriminalization of cannabis, seeing cannabis as a health problem. But when DuPont left government he changed his mind and declared that "decriminalization is a bad idea".[7] Robert DuPont is still an active proponent to decriminalization of cannabis.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,913219,00.html

The Nation: The Grass Is Greener
Monday, July 07, 1975
The legal taboos against marijuana continue to crumble. Last week California state legislators voted to do away with formal booking procedures, jail penalties and permanent criminal records in cases of pot possession. Though possession remains a criminal misdemeanor, offenders will suffer none of the stigmas of a criminal arrest. The week before, the lawmakers of both Maine and Colorado had drastically decreased the penalty for possession of small amounts of the weed by setting modest civil fines as the sole punishment. Oregon and Alaska (TIME, June 9) had already decriminalized the private use of pot.

Again, stop living in the past.

you need to stop living in wishful thinking land

The government can't ignore people forever,

and.....REALLY?

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Wiki's a repository, not a source. The meat is in the citations. Don't let anybody pull that crap on you unless they factually refute the citation(s). It does happen but it's not the wholesale argument folks like to sling.

 

[MadBuddhaAbuser]

http://www.naturalnews.com/034630_Ron_Paul_democrats_liberals.html

interesting random article I came across.

10 reasons why even democrats, liberals and progressives are choosing Ron Paul over Obama

(NaturalNews) It's a seemingly absurd idea on the surface: Why would democrats and liberals want to vote for Ron Paul (a Republican) over President Obama? Maybe because they want freedom instead of tyranny, it turns out. Because if you're a total slave to the police state, it doesn't really matter whether you're on the left or the right, does it?

Here, I give you ten solid reasons why even liberals and progressives are supporting Ron Paul. And by the way, I don't worship Ron Paul or any individual. What I honor is the principles that Ron Paul stands for -- the very same principles President Obama has outright abandoned in his broken promises and disturbing reversals against the American people. Out of all the candidates, only Ron Paul has the ethical and moral strength to carry out his office from a place of principle rather than betrayal.

#1) Ron Paul supports decriminalizing marijuana and ending the War on Drugs. Obama does not.
Remember when Obama promised he would decriminalize marijuana, but now his own administration continues to raid legal drug dispensaries in California? That's a classic Obama lie: Say one thing to get elected, then turn around and do the exact opposite.

Ron Paul, on the other hand, openly supports decriminalizing marijuana and ending the failed War on Drugs. Although he doesn't promote recreational drug use (and neither do I), he understands that treating weed smokers as hard-core criminals is ethical, morally and economically wrong. See my related article on Snoop Dogg and his recent drug bust in Texas: http://www.naturalnews.com/034612_Snoop_Dogg_marijuana_War_on_Drugs.h...

#2) Ron Paul supports the freedom to choose what you eat and drink, including raw milk, but the Obama administration continues to run armed raids on raw milk farmers
Under Ron Paul, the FDA would be forced to end its vicious armed raids on Amish farmers and raw dairy producers. Obama has openly allowed such armed raids to continue under his watch, refusing to even take a stand for food freedom in America.

Ron Paul understands that liberty is the most important component of abundance. If you are not free to choose what you want to eat, smoke what you want to smoke, and choose your own type of medicine and health care, then you are a slave, not a citizen. Ron Paul seeks to get Big Government out of your life, away from your kitchen, out of your medicine cabinet and away from your children.

#3) Ron Paul would seek to eliminate FDA censorship of the scientifically-validated health claims for herbs, nutritional supplements and natural remedies
Under Bush and Obama, the FDA's continued censorship of truthful statements about medicinal herbs, homeopathy and nutritional supplements has been fully supported by the White House. Obama is just a corporate puppet, of course, and that means he does whatever the powerful corporations tell him to do -- especially the Wall Street and Big Pharma corporations. So it's no surprise he hasn't taken a stand to support health freedom for foods and supplements.

But Ron Paul has pushed the Health Freedom Protection Act year after year (http://www.naturalnews.com/019382_Health_Freedom_Protection_Act.html), tirelessly working to legalize nutrition in America and restore Free Speech for Chinese Medicine herbs, Western medicine herbs and dietary supplements. Where Obama wants people to remain ignorant and malnourished, Ron Paul wants to restore your right to know the truth about supplements and natural medicine. As Ron Paul said in late 2005:

"The Health Freedom Protection Act will force the FDA to at last comply with the commands of Congress, the First Amendment, and the American people by codifying the First Amendment standards adopted by the federal courts. Specifically, the Health Freedom Protection Act stops the FDA from censoring truthful claims about the curative, mitigative, or preventative effects of dietary supplements, and adopts the federal court's suggested use of disclaimers as an alternative to censorship. The Health Freedom Protection Act also stops the FDA from prohibiting the distribution of scientific articles and publications regarding the role of nutrients in protecting against disease."

#4) Ron Paul would shut down secret military prisons like Gitmo, but Obama wants to expand those prisons and fill them with Americans!
It is now common knowledge that Obama lied when he said he would shut down Guantanamo Bay. As it turns out, Obama actually signed the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) on New Year's Eve (when no one would notice). The NDAA grants the U.S. government the claimed "legal" right to "indefinitely detain" U.S. citizens, throw them in secret military prisons, interrogate them and even kill them with no due process. All this can now take place without a person even being charged with a crime, much less given their day in court. (http://www.naturalnews.com/034537_NDAA_Bill_of_Rights_Obama.html)

Obama quietly signed this bill on New Year's Eve, hoping no one would notice. This is how low his morals have stooped, by the way -- to signing traitorous bills in the dark of night, on the evening before a major holiday where half the nation is hung over from alcohol. Why no signing ceremony with full coverage by CNN, huh? Maybe it's because national traitors don't want their crimes against the United States Constitution to be filmed on camera.

In signing this, Obama violated his own oath of office, nullified the U.S. Bill of Rights, and essentially committed an act of mass civil rights violations against the People of America. Rep. Ron Paul, on the other hand, is one of the very few people who has openly and sternly opposed this unlawful NDAA which blatantly and arrogantly violates the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights.

This single point alone outweighs everything else you might think about Ron Paul. Even if you disagree with Ron Paul on other issues, none of that really matters if you're rotting away in a secret military prison for daring to protest in a public park, for example. Without the Bill of Rights, nothing else really matters because tyranny takes over. The Bill of Rights must be defended first and at all costs. It is the only thing limiting the power of government and protecting the People from tyranny. Without it, we are all little more than slaves to a military dictatorship.

#5) Ron Paul is anti-war, Obama is pro-war.
Remember when Bush was the President, and everybody on the left was screaming about getting us out of all those wars in the Middle East? Funny how they suddenly fell silent when Obama took over the reins from Bush and continued running those same wars, isn't it?

Ron Paul is solidly anti-war. Although he agrees with the need to "defend our shores," he also believes that the United States has no moral authority (nor financial stability) from which to engage in running around the world as some sort of global police force, intervening in the business of nations, especially in the Middle East.

He is solidly against a war with Iran even as all the other candidates seem to be almost desperate to throw other people's sons and daughters onto the front lines of violent conflict. Only Ron Paul truly honors the troops by bringing them home. All the other war-mongers who say "support our troops" are really screaming, "Let our troops get killed overseas!" And unlike Gingrich, Ron Paul actually served his country as a military man, even with a child to care for:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/ron-paul-i-went-photo-going-viral-on-inte...

#6) Ron Paul's wants to end the Fed and stop bailing out wealthy banksters, while Obama is a Wall Street sellout
Don't you find it astonishing that, under the Obama administration, wall street crooks like Jon Corzine have been involved in the theft of billions of dollars from American farmers and investors, yet no one has been indicted, prosecuted or criminally charged for those crimes?

Under the Obama administration, white-collar crime gets a wink and a nod. That's because people like Vice President Joe Biden actually worship Jon Corzine (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xm3VMrKqJSA). Wall Street crooks were some of the largest contributors to the Obama election campaign, and they continue to promote both Obama and Mitt Romney.

Ron Paul, on the other hand, gets no support from the criminal banksters. That's because he pledges to reign in the Fed, end the disastrous trillion-dollar bailouts and halt the theft of money from U.S. taxpayers by the wealthy elite.

Once again, this reason alone is enough of a reason to vote for Ron Paul. He's the only candidate who doesn't support the financial criminals on Wall Street. Maybe that's why the crooked corporate media keeps smearing him in the news... they're all tied in with the same crooks who run Wall Street.

#7) Ron Paul does not need a teleprompter to tell you what he believes, and his message has remained consistent for over 25 years
Obama needs a teleprompter to figure out what to say. That's because he's mainly a puppet who says what he's told to say and signs what he's told to sign (like the NDAA, which he of course promised he wouldn't sign but did anyway).

Ron Paul needs no teleprompter. He doesn't have to keep track of which lies he told in which speech to which group. That's because Ron Paul tells the truth every time, and his message is the same whether he's in Iowa, New Hampshire or Texas.

Ron Paul isn't sexy, trendy or hip. Instead, he's honest, reliable and ethical. Gee, those might be good qualities for leaders to possess, ya think?

#8) Ron Paul is not really a Republican loyalist
This should come as quite a relief to the Democrats out there. Ron Paul is really a Libertarian who is running on the Republican ticket thanks to the necessary mechanisms of our two-party system. Most of today's Republicans are just as corrupt as status quo democrats. They start wars, stage false flag terror events and hand out trillions of dollars in bailouts and government contracts to their corrupt buddies.

Ron Paul is none of that. He's a humble, highly intelligent and principled individual who often votes against his fellow Republicans on bills that run counter to the United States Constitution.

If Ron Paul wins as a Republican, that would of course give Republicans some additional power in Congress, but Ron Paul answers to no one other than God and the People. As all the corrupt corporate lobbyists realized long ago, Ron Paul thinks for himself and cannot be bought off, no matter how high the offer. He sticks to principles, he honors the Constitution, and he is dedicated to improving the future of our nation, period!

#9) Ron Paul wants to legalize Free Speech (again)
Isn't it interesting how many of the OWS protesters are now being forced to pay daily fees for the "privilege" of protesting? Gee, I thought America was a free country, and I thought you could peaceably assemble anytime you wanted and shout your grievances to your government. Guess not: http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=FF2F1E3B23AEACE48AB3559AB17B857F

Now the police state pepper spraying has begun, all under Obama of course, who now wants to send Americans into secret military prisons and deprive them of their due process rights. If you believe in the First Amendment and freedom of speech, you can't believe in Obama! He is the polar opposite of freedom (plus, he flat out lies a lot).

Ron Paul has fought for the Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution for decades, and he has a PERFECT voting record in defending it. He does not waver. He does not bend. He fights for your freedoms in a way that no other Democrat or Republican has ever done.

If you want Free Speech to be legal again in America, vote for Ron Paul.

#10) Ron Paul wants to criminally investigate the crooks in Washington
Most Democrats and Republicans are all crooks who just cover each other's backs. Yeah, you raped a little kid, but I stole a billion dollars from the taxpayers, and we'll just agree to both remain silent. Sound familiar? That's what happens in Washington D.C. almost daily.

Ron Paul thinks elected officials should follow the law. Shock! What a concept! Along with that, he also believes that Attorney General Eric Holder should not run guns into Mexico as part of a staged scam to blame the Second Amendment. Gasp!

Who else dares to say the bureaucrats in Washington are crooks who should be criminally investigated for their crimes against the People? You won't find status quo officials pursuing any of this, of course, because they're all corrupt!

Only Ron Paul stands out above the lawless corruption and criminal-mindedness of the status quo in Washington D.C. He is the "anti-insider," the one man who actually threatens the entire corrupt system (which is why the press smears him every single day). This is why the recent voting in Iowa was falsified and rigged to make sure Ron Paul wouldn't win (this was openly admitted by the Republican leaders on local radio). The crooks in Washington absolutely do not want Ron Paul to become President, and that alone should be sufficient reason to put Ron Paul into office!

You want real hope? Real change? Support Ron Paul
If you love the way things are today -- unemployment on the rise, a government drowning in debt, soldiers coming home in body bags, your friends and neighbors rotting in prison after getting caught with a little weed -- then vote for Obama! He's happy to carry on the insane policies that have led us to this point in history.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

I'm down that Ron Paul doesn't whip the typical partisan furor. That said, IMO his platform is as far right as it gets. Safety net aside, no other candidate supports the dismantling of multiple agencies (unless you throw in Rick Perry.)

Two guys from the same state, same party - and at different points in their political careers, advocated state's rights to secede from the nation.

I don't get it. Ever since I was 18 I've paid moderate attention to the electorate. Never once have I seen a hint that the radical stuff flushes outside the base.

If that's true, why would anybody pile it up so much?

 

[itisme]

Here, I give you ten solid reasons why even liberals and progressives are supporting Ron Paul. And by the way, I don't worship Ron Paul or any individual. What I honor is the principles that Ron Paul stands for --

Grand slam post. I agree wth so much of it I may as well wrote it.

#2) Ron Paul supports the freedom to choose what you eat and drink, including raw milk, but the Obama administration continues to run armed raids on raw milk farmers
Under Ron Paul, the FDA would be forced to end its vicious armed raids on Amish farmers and raw dairy producers. Obama has openly allowed such armed raids to continue under his watch, refusing to even take a stand for food freedom in America.


#3) Ron Paul would seek to eliminate FDA censorship of the scientifically-validated health claims for herbs, nutritional supplements and natural remedies
Under Bush and Obama, the FDA's continued censorship of truthful statements about medicinal herbs, homeopathy and nutritional supplements has been fully supported by the White House. Obama is just a corporate puppet, of course, and that means he does whatever the powerful corporations tell him to do -- especially the Wall Street and Big Pharma corporations. So it's no surprise he hasn't taken a stand to support health freedom for foods and supplements.

This is the type stuff people don't comprehend.....I even used the raw milk example.
They will even say they don't trust the Gov't but the think the FDA, EPA, DHS are all out to help us.
I remember when I felt that way, the illusion of safety was nice.
It feels a lot better than having 30,000 drones overhead, losing your property rights and property, and worrying about FEMA Camps....Not that our Gubbynati would use them on us.

That is some very well citied reporting LOVE IT MADBUDDAH my BROTHER

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

My uncle's a dairy farmer. He says he drinks raw milk but he wouldn't sell it w/o process. He doesn't give milk away and there's only so much he can drink. So there's lots of milk to get rid of and one bad batch could cost him his dairy farm.

Tens of thousands of producers of food and medicine, maybe more. Without regulation we might not have more frequent nut-bag Tylenol tamperers but we might get more folks croaking from salmonella spinach, strawberries... et al.

It's one thing if you want to risk your health with under-inspected processes, not unlike some of the toxic stuff we're getting from China. But I wouldn't vote for you if you campaigned on doing anything to curb, let alone end inspections of food and drugs.

 

[icon]

You want real hope? Real change? Support Ron Paul
If you love the way things are today -- unemployment on the rise, a government drowning in debt, soldiers coming home in body bags, your friends and neighbors rotting in prison after getting caught with a little weed -- then vote for Obama! He's happy to carry on the insane policies that have led us to this point in history.

FUCK YEAH!!!!!

 

[itisme]

I stole this from the DailyPaul. He was resonding to somebody about RP and ending the FDA

To understand the position of liberty as related to health you must ask yourself a few questions and get the old cob webbed way of thinking out of your system.

What makes you think that there would be less drug testing if the FDA were abolished? Who is stopping people from testing drugs in the free market?

Who is forcing you to take new drugs on the market that you do not believe have been thoroughly tested?

If you think there is a govt. agency testing drugs thoroughly, are you more likely to take new drugs on the market without educating yourself first? Is this not at least partly shirking your own responsibility in the matter? What if the govt. was paid off to approve a new drug that was dangerous? Do you really trust government to thoroughly test drugs? How many people have died from approved drugs? How many people have died who could have been saved by drugs which took too long to be approved or were never approved? You can't just put up one example of where people were hurt and assume that overall they have benefited society, you have nothing to compare it to.

How many good healthful substances have not been approved by the FDA due to lack of funding for testing? Do you know how many tens of millions of dollars it requires to get a drug through all of the FDA hurdles?

Are you aware that since it is not profitable to put a natural substance that cannot be patented through FDA testing that therefore natural substances CAN AND WILL NEVER be approved for use by the FDA? What if many of these substances are more safe and more effective at treating a variety of conditions and ailments? Isn't this a major flaw in the system?

Finally, the FDA is controlled by big pharma (the drug industry) as well as big ag (Monsanto, etc.). They create these hurdles so that they become the monopoly players in the industry and profit the most, removing smaller competitors and natural substances which cannot be patented from having any widespread use. It is a racket.

For the first time in nearly a century,
automobile accidents are no longer the nation’s leading cause of accidental deaths, according to a major report released Tuesday by the National Center for Health Statistics. The new number one killer is drugs—not smack, crystal meth or any other stepped-on menace sold in urban alleyways or trailer parks, but bright, shiny pills prescribed by doctors, approved by the government, manufactured by pharmaceutical companies and sold to the consumer as “medicine.” Yet of the billions of legit pills Americans pop every year for medical conditions serious and otherwise, the vast majority of lives are claimed by only a select few classes—painkillers, sedatives and stimulants—that all share a common characteristic: they promote abuse, dependence and addiction.
“This is just the tip of the iceberg of the prescription drug abuse problem,” says Dr. Margaret Warner, the federal report’s lead author. “The take-home here is, this should be a wake-up call.” Some 41,000 Americans died from what the report refers to as “poisonings” in 2008, compared with 38,000 traffic deaths. That tally marks a 90 percent increase in poisonings and a 15 percent decrease in car accidents since 1999.

THE ENTIRE ARTICLE:

http://www.thefix.com/content/america%E2%80%99s-newest-top-killer9999?page=all

WAKE UP PEOPLE!

 

[SpasticGramps]

If that's true, why would anybody pile it up so much?

Because this nation has strayed so far from it's ideological founding that radical change is the only answer in some people's eyes.

We've had 100+ years of complete progressive rule. Even Hoover, who the Neo-Liberals cite as "conservative" was a self professed progressive. His policies leave no doubt.

I'm not saying that the founders were perfect or not fucked up even, but they had an idea that government should be based on the belief that rights are granted by natural law and not by government. That is what supposedly made America "exceptional".

Ron Paul has tapped into this long lost ideology that was based on adherence to a true Constitutional Republic and now that a dark authoritarian cloud has covered the country (for decades mind you) the fever for freedom is spreading beyond the most radical base to which it's been confined.

To paraphrase Jefferson. Things to need to be shaken up every once in a while.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Would you stop taking every uninspected otc and or prescription med? I bet even drug manufacturers aren't skippy with the idea they'd sell many drugs if folks think there's little reason to expect that drugs as a whole are no safer than the hole in the Gulf of Mexico that spewed crude oil for months.

 

[itisme]

The new number one killer is drugs—not smack, crystal meth or any other stepped-on menace sold in urban alleyways or trailer parks, but bright, shiny pills prescribed by doctors, approved by the government, manufactured by pharmaceutical companies and sold to the consumer as “medicine.”

This is the issue. The FDA don't care about us and isn't there to protect us. They want you to believe they are protecting us. You all question me but not this FACT???

Key findings

Data from the National Vital Statistics System Mortality File

• In 2008, poisoning became the leading cause of injury death in the United States and nearly 9 out of 10 poisoning deaths are caused by drugs.
• During the past three decades, the number of drug poisoning deaths increased sixfold from about 6,100 in 1980 to 36,500 in 2008.
• During the most recent decade, the number of drug poisoning deaths involving opioid analgesics more than tripled from about 4,000 in 1999 to 14,800 in 2008.
• Opioid analgesics were involved in more than 40% of all drug poisoning deaths in 2008, up from about 25% in 1999.
• In 2008, the drug poisoning death rate was higher for males, people aged 45–54 years, and non-Hispanic white and American Indian or Alaska Native persons than for females and those in other age and racial and ethnic groups.

In 2008, over 41,000 people died as a result of a poisoning. One of the Healthy People 2020 objectives, retained from Healthy People 2010, is to reduce fatal poisonings in the United States (1). However, poisoning mortality increased during the Healthy People 2010 tracking period. Drugs—both legal and illegal—cause the vast majority of poisoning deaths. Misuse or abuse of prescription drugs, including opioid analgesic pain relievers, is responsible for much of the increase in drug poisoning deaths (see "Definitions" section). This report highlights trends in poisoning deaths, drug poisoning deaths, and the type of drugs involved in drug poisoning deaths and updates a previous data brief on this topic (2

 

[zymos]

From your article

"Nearly nine out of ten of those poisonings were caused by prescription drug overdoses, with the chief culprit being opiate-based pain relievers such as Vicodin (hydrocodone), OxyContin and Percocet (oxycodone), codeine, morphine—and let’s not forget Actiq (fentanyl), the infamous berry-flavored lollipop that is 100 times stronger than morphine and—like most opiate analgesics—so overprescribed that only about 10% of its sales come from its original indication to treat cancer pain."

OVERDOSES. Pain medicines are being more widely used, more people are dying.

Which has what to do with the FDA? Nothing whatsoever.

And this is prescription drugs, that, in America, are relatively difficult to get. Sure, plenty of people get their hands on them, but you can't just walk in and buy them over the counter. Because they are REGULATED.

So those stats you posted paint a good case that if overdosing on relatively hard to obtain prescription drugs is NOW the leading cause of accidental death, then LESS regulation is going to lead to even MORE deaths.

So, yeah, good point...

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Because this nation has strayed so far from it's ideological founding that radical change is the only answer in some people's eyes.

Do you really think that's mainstream desire? Would you be willing to see the whole country go through another catastrophe for a comparative few? Rhetorical question.

We've had 100+ years of complete progressive rule. Even Hoover, who the Neo-Liberals cite as "conservative" was a self professed progressive. His policies leave no doubt.

I know. Anything not libertarian is the same thing. Never mind that outcomes range from record deficits, record income disparity and great depression to generating the middle class and keeping debt within the stratosphere (and) generating surpluses, despite being smack dab in the middle of voodoo economics. Go back the 6 decades before satarve the beast and (with the exception of the '37 detour... uh, mini-voodoo) we see similar sustained growth. Hello middle class. And we didn't have to take as much as we kept them from taking what little increment of growth and opportunity we enjoyed.

Two guys with fed gub experience interview for the same, private sector job. One boasts his ability to broadcast and implement supply-side economics while simultaneously reminding his cronies he's starving the beast.

Before hiring the other applicant, the interviewer asks only one question - "Are you and adult?"

I'm not saying that the founders were perfect or not fucked up even, but they had an idea that government should be based on the belief that rights are granted by natural law and not by government. That is what supposedly made America "exceptional".

IMO, government isn't perfect and the market surely ain't. I'm still a fan of the natural order of process. Without it everything gets messed up. Then it's a matter of how long do we follow ideology that doesn't work. You say our current system will blow up. IMO, I'm not ready to go implosion on a prediction. Little to no middle class under Ron Paul's vision of the past... er, future.

Ron Paul has tapped into this long lost ideology that was based on adherence to a true Constitutional Republic and now that a dark authoritarian cloud has covered the country (for decades mind you) the fever for freedom is spreading beyond the most radical base to which it's been confined.

To paraphrase Jefferson. Things to need to be shaken up every once in a while.

IMO, we'll get the NDAA shit fixed. Enough Americans have to demand the closing of GITMO or they'll have to elect lawmakers that will do it on their own accord.

As far as assault gun restrictions and the like that IMO are reasonable, I don't believe there's such a thing as one man's (especially) static interpretation in the wholesale sense. I expect my baby doctors to be expert and I expect no less of my constitutional scholars and legal experts.

If more innocents have to go down because of nut bags shooting em in general public, that's enough to caution my opinion of anybody advocating no restrictions on assault weapons.