Ron Paul does NOT fully endorse Romney and is holding his own rally in Tampa

[clistensprechen]

Boom Yo--Ron Paul even has his own original music. Doesn't cop a tune from any Top 40 band.

[donni]

He will not speak at Repub convention.  Maybe the Dems should invite him.   :applause:

http://www.dailypaul.com/250905/ny-times-ron-paul-i-cant-fully-endorse-romney

That would be great. He could talk about how Obama's war in Afghanistan is unconstitutional.
He could talk about abolishing the federal income tax.
He could talk about how he opposes welfare for illegal aliens, birthright citizenship and amnesty.
He could explain how life begins at conception.

the war is unconstitutional.

i disagree with ending the tax-i just disagree with how they are used.

i don't oppose people from other countries coming to live here and getting help.

life does begin at conception but i am not against people making decisions about that life for themselves. they must live with it and their own conscience and god.

guess i'm not a ron paul supporter-if this is true.

[wbcoleman]

donni, trust me, you're not a Ron Paul supporter!

[clistensprechen]

I am and I'm not, depending on what plank of Ron Paul's position we're talking about.

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were marginally constitutional, as the former was conducted with the required approval of Congress while the latter was covered by the Constitution's treaty clause (NATO) with a lame attempt at U.N. approval (yes, the same party who claims the U.N. is useless actually sought its approval for something).

I'm convinced that the Fed needs to both be audited and be held accountable but I don't believe in abolishing it or going back to the infernal gold standard. Some talking head on CSPAN pointed out that even Reagan considered going back to the gold standard and discovered that the value of our currency would be held at the mercy of the international gold market, which IMHO is definitely not the way to go. We got to be a rich nation by creating our own wealth by industry (making stuff) and it's perfectly fine for us to make our own wealth since what we have done was held in high value.

I agree that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional--it's a case of Congress abdicating a responsibility that the Constitution assigned to it without bothering to properly amend the Constitution as prescribed by it.  The Pentagon DEFINITELY needs to be audited and often! Etc.

[wbcoleman]

I am and I'm not, depending on what plank of Ron Paul's position we're talking about.

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were marginally constitutional, as the former was conducted with the required approval of Congress while the latter was covered by the Constitution's treaty clause (NATO) with a lame attempt at U.N. approval (yes, the same party who claims the U.N. is useless actually sought its approval for something).

I'm convinced that the Fed needs to both be audited and be held accountable but I don't believe in abolishing it or going back to the infernal gold standard. Some talking head on CSPAN pointed out that even Reagan considered going back to the gold standard and discovered that the value of our currency would be held at the mercy of the international gold market, which IMHO is definitely not the way to go. We got to be a rich nation by creating our own wealth by industry (making stuff) and it's perfectly fine for us to make our own wealth since what we have done was held in high value.

I agree that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional--it's a case of Congress abdicating a responsibility that the Constitution assigned to it without bothering to properly amend the Constitution as prescribed by it.  The Pentagon DEFINITELY needs to be audited and often! Etc.

Be honest, clara.  Your favorite thing about Ron Paul is the slight hope that he might somehow embarrass Mitt.

[clistensprechen]

I've been honest--and, honestly wish you'd stop putting your words in my mouth.  They taste like ****.

[wbcoleman]

I've been honest--and, honestly wish you'd stop putting your words in my mouth.  They taste like ****.

SOR-REEEEEEEEEE!    :sofa:

[Ted S]

donni, trust me, you're not a Ron Paul supporter!

It's surprising how many modern liberals think think they are Ron Paul supporters because they agree with him on a couple of issues.  My guess is that donni would be with Ron Paul on 20-30% of his agenda but would be absolutely appalled at his positions on the other 70-80%.

In my opinion, Ron Paul's support from the left mostly comes about for two reasons:

1. They like when he pokes his finger in the eye of his own party.
2. They are ignorant of his domestic policy ideas.

[clistensprechen]

I agree with about 60% of his positions and I'm fully aware of his domestic policy ideas, 70% of which really rock.

Then again, I've been following his positions and Campaign for Liberty for a lot longer than a lot of johnny-come-latelys that have come on board just this year.

[Ted S]

Jon Stewart did an interview of Ron Paul in the run-up to the 2008 election that I think would be very instructional for those who think they know him.  Basically it was a lightning-round of questions concerning federal programs and agencies in which Rep. Paul would answer either "keep" or "get rid of."

I can't find it on YouTube because there are a gazillion Ron Paul interviews but it should be required viewing for anybody on the left who thinks that Ron Paul would be better than GW Bush was or Romney will be. If Ron Paul were Clara's magical king I bet he would cut the size and scope of the federal government by 90%. Bush and Romney are far left socialists compared to Ron Paul.

Now I'm not being critical of Ron Paul; in fact I agree with him about 90% of the time.  I'm just trying to make the point that many on the left know or understand so little about his domestic agenda that the negatives would far outweigh the positives of his foreign policy.

[Woody]

donni, trust me, you're not a Ron Paul supporter!

It's surprising how many modern liberals think think they are Ron Paul supporters because they agree with him on a couple of issues.  My guess is that donni would be with Ron Paul on 20-30% of his agenda but would be absolutely appalled at his positions on the other 70-80%.

In my opinion, Ron Paul's support from the left mostly comes about for two reasons:

1. They like when he pokes his finger in the eye of his own party.
2. They are ignorant of his domestic policy ideas.

Many think they agree with his positions without fully understanding his positions.  Like drugs or abortion.  His position is that the constitution DOES NOT give the federal government authority to regulate them which means it would be up to the states.

[clistensprechen]

Jon Stewart did an interview of Ron Paul in the run-up to the 2008 election that I think would be very instructional for those who think they know him.  Basically it was a lightning-round of questions concerning federal programs and agencies in which Rep. Paul would answer either "keep" or "get rid of."

I can't find it on YouTube because there are a gazillion Ron Paul interviews but it should be required viewing for anybody on the left who thinks that Ron Paul would be better than GW Bush was or Romney will be. If Ron Paul were Clara's magical king I bet he would cut the size and scope of the federal government by 90%. Bush and Romney are far left socialists compared to Ron Paul.

Now I'm not being critical of Ron Paul; in fact I agree with him about 90% of the time.  I'm just trying to make the point that many on the left know or understand so little about his domestic agenda that the negatives would far outweigh the positives of his foreign policy.

When you're talking about the left, you're right...er...correct...so now is a good time to point out that, despite popular opinion voiced by cons on this board, I'm not a leftist.  And despite popular opinion voiced by cons by and large, neither is Ralph Nader, as he agrees with Ron Paul on about 90% of what he says.

[Ted S]

Many think they agree with his positions without fully understanding his positions.  Like drugs or abortion.  His position is that the constitution DOES NOT give the federal government authority to regulate them which means it would be up to the states.

You are correct.

Back on the old Air America Place board I remember a lefty posting a link to this video thinking that it supported their modern liberal agenda but nothing could be further from the truth.  The video supports a classical liberal agenda but in no way supports the agenda of today's liberal or the Democrat party.

[Ted S]

When you're talking about the left, you're right...er...correct...so now is a good time to point out that, despite popular opinion voiced by cons on this board, I'm not a leftist.  And despite popular opinion voiced by cons by and large, neither is Ralph Nader, as he agrees with Ron Paul on about 90% of what he says.

Yes Clara, you're not a loyal leftist but you do in my opinion come down to the left of center.  As for Nader agreeing with 90% of Ron Paul's agenda, not true.  He *may* agree with 90% of Ron Paul's foreign policy but they are worlds apart on the entire domestic agenda which in my opinion is more important.

[Woody]

Many think they agree with his positions without fully understanding his positions.  Like drugs or abortion.  His position is that the constitution DOES NOT give the federal government authority to regulate them which means it would be up to the states.

You are correct.

Back on the old Air America Place board I remember a lefty posting a link to this video thinking that it supported their modern liberal agenda but nothing could be further from the truth.  The video supports a classical liberal agenda but in no way supports the agenda of today's liberal or the Democrat party.

Classical being the key word.