Drs Ron Paul Rand Paul CNN 8/6/2009 “Obama Gets An F, Congress Is Out Of Control”

@ Plusaf, I must admit that I haven't read Atlas Shrugged but I saw the movie.

I haven't read the "Virtue of being selfish" either, perhaps because I did not understand what the story was about. Clearly what you are talking about in my world of meaning is not the selfishness that hurts people. And I really appreciate your HP example. HP was up here in Oregon, too. And several people that I know that used to work for HP thought very highly of their company. But as you said, management came in that didn't care about the people or the company, just their own trajectory to greater income. It is truly sad that those days of employees taking pride in their companies is almost gone.

I guess I will have to read Ayn Rand after all, just so I can speak and talk about it without being ignorant of the content.

I do realize that you cannot transmit what you don't have and that you have to put yourself first before you can help others. But I don't call that selfishness, I call that having healthy self respect and self esteem. It seems odd to use a word that has connotations of something dark and bad to explain something that is good and healthy. Hmmm.

Regards to you Plusaf.

Until later.

Eleganza
Most people could benefit from better education, there is little doubt about that.

Everyday when I leave my neighborhood and drive to work I find it ironic that as pass through the different sections of the city the, lets call them challenged, areas where there is an obvious lack of financial success is where I see the most display of anti Obama bumper stickers. Now if these are the 'common sense" folks that you are speaking of why is it that they linger one generation after another in near poverty? This notion that an education equals an absence of "street smarts" is nonsense. Trust me when I tell you this much, I have grown up as a kid in East LA and I now live in a gated community and the people I now have as neighbors are no dummies. The people I grew up around would spend their last dollar for a set of "rims" and put not one cent in savings. Their "ride" had more invested in it than their kids education. They had a PHD in street smarts
and lived paycheck to paycheck...it's called common sense because virtually everyone thinks they have it thus "common"
I want to vomit every time I here this BS that somehow a good ole boy with some "common sense" could solve all the problems we have, yet they cannot
figure out that an adjustable rate mortgage will adjust..UPWARD.. just like the contract that they signed said it would. They won't or more accurately can't read it because their education falls short. Why the right wing finds education deplorable mystifies me, we just had eight years of a "C" average man,and look at the results.

Ak,

How odd. I pose questions and positions to you...and you respond by creating a strange alternative reality in which you "respond" to questions I did NOT ask and points I did NOT make.

Not one single word of my post could possibly be construed as suggesting that you did or should hold Obama in some kind of "awe." Yet your "response" implies that this is exactly what I suggested.

Not one single word of my post could possibly have been construed as even ALLUDING to persons serving in the House or Senate...or to any of the "Czars" President Obama has appointed. Yet you not only imply that I did so but that I also "pooh poohed" your concerns in that regard.

In fact, in the course of a pretty lengthy post in which you purport to respond to MY post, you only actually address my post in one very short sentence. I said that I thought the well educated voters who voted for Obama understood the positions of the person for whom they voted. You disagree. That's it. That is the only part of my post you actually address. And you don't offer a single shred of evidence to show why your position should be more persuasive than mine.

I have been ignoring and skipping over your posts for a couple of months, Ak. This is exactly the reason why. I am sure you are not losing any sleep over the fact that cztheday is not reading your stuff -- that's not what I am saying. But what is the point of engaging someone in a dialogue or debate when they are clearly posting only to hear the sound of their own voice?

I don't expect you to AGREE with anything I say. To the contrary, I fully expect that you will take the opposing position. But I think I can rightfully decline to engage someone in conversation if they won't even extend to me the common courtesy of LISTENING to my side of the argument. If you want to listen and then dismiss my side -- no problem. But to not listen and then PRETEND to respond while in actuality making up positions and acting as though I had taken them so you can then make up responses more to your liking? That is quite frankly (and unacceptably) rude. Clearly my earlier decision on how to treat your commnts was the correct one.

I'm beginning to understand we are arguing about what it is we are assuming the other is trying to express instead of what they have written. I never wrote nor meant to imply Obama "slipped in under the radar" no did I ever mention his performance, either in a positive or negative light. I merely wrote that interacted with many democrats and republicans that were less knowledgeable about their candidates policy positions than I would have liked. I'm glad you had a different experience. I honestly don't know what we are supposed to be disagreeing about.

Book smarts, common sense, street smart, or other forms of intelligence are obviously related. Just not to the extent that people believe they are. Sometimes those who have lived their lives in academia can and do loss some of their sense about how the world works. I'm not trying to imply this is the norm only that the protective isolation of academia can, unfortunately, allow people to fall into the trap of believing that their expertise in one field somehow gives them insights into other completely unrelated fields. A doctor that testifies as to the statistically unlikely nature of two SIDs deaths in one family lead to the conviction of an innocent women because the physician didn't have the basic understanding of conditional probability. Con artists actively seek out intelligent well educated people because they know them to be more susceptible specifically because they believe themselves to be too intelligent to fall for con artists. The idea that a person with a degree in philosophy who continues with their education to get a law degree is somehow an expert in business, economics, climatology, biology, or any number of completely unrelated fields because they went to an ivy league school is one of the problems with government. The problem isn't that intelligent or well educated people don't posses common sense only that some think they are more intelligent then they are.

An interesting article over overestimation of competency in unrelated fields.
http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf

cztheday,
~ Apparently you overlooked the sentence "What pray tell has changed"?
~ I did fail to state clearly, although my intent was to imply that nothing has changed from the past administration to the current.
~ What I see are ongoing "fuck-ups" still in place within the house and senate and a host of questionable "czars" appointed by Obama with no oversight or accountability...but no need going there with you because you've previously pooh-poohed that as of a benign significance...I, on the other hand do not.
~ Also that you perceive that "the educated portion of the electorate who VOTED for Obama and whether they understood the positions and qualities of the man for whom they voted. .that they fact did".
~ I, on the other hand believe that many "thought" they had the measure of the man, but in fact did not.
~ And may I ask you, what is your bizarre fascination with Obama?
~ Because he is intelligent and articulate and spoke to the masses with a silver tongue, promising utopia, I should be in awe?
~ As I and ever growing numbers see it, a man out of nowhere with questionable credentials and no appreciable track record put at the helm of this great nation may well turn out to be a grave mistake.
~ That is my honest take on it, and in fact I would rather be wrong about this assessment than right, but I do not believe that I am.

Ak:

First, what is this bizarre obsession you have with Obama and his Administration? Your response implies that the Obama Administration is a microcosm of the world of educated people. The Young Republicans Club at my graduate school would be aghast at your comment. Your comment implies that regardless of WHICH educated people Obama had selected the outcome would have been the same...in other words that his mistake was in selecting educated people for his administration.

I can assure you that Bush Sr and Jr as well as Reagan, appointed LARGE numbers of educated people in their administrations, as well. Bush Jr may have been ambivalent toward the value of an education (despite his own admittedly miraculous matriculation from Yale), but his father EMBRACED such qualifications...and Reagan tended to value educated folks as well...just not ones who valued honesty as much as they valued knowledge.

And, naturally enough I suppose, I utterly reject your conclusion that President Obama's policies have somehow "failed" when we are barely halfway through the first year of his Presidency and have spent barely 20% of the funds allocated to the stimulus package -- which is only one of his many current and planned initiatives. I gather you don't understand or appreciate this bit of irony: the expectations for Bush, Jr., were so low when he entered office that the fact that he did not choke to death on a pretzel was considered a major Republican victory...yet the expectations for President Obama apparently include one that he solve every Republican fuck-up for the last 8 years during his first six months in office. Hey -- sounds completely fair to me...

But of course, the comment of mine that you cite had nothing whatsoever to do with the Obama Adminstration. It had to do with the educated portion of the electorate who VOTED for Obama and whether they understood the positions and qualities of the man for whom they voted. They did.

"I am just a little skeptical that common sense is a commodity reserved for the UNeducated...simply seems to defy...{common sense}..." states cztheday!
~ Hmmm, given the logic and tactics employed by our "new" administration, I must say I differ. . . . . . . . What pray tell has changed?
~ With bureaucrats rushing headlong and headstrong into economic, capital market manipulation programs, not to mention social engineering (health, education and welfare) programs on national levels that to most clear thinking people see as knee-jerk reactions to crisis, real or imagined, without even knowing the "real" content to which they vote on as completely ludicrous.
~ It most certainly leads those that I know and relate with, to question if "common sense" is even used at all by any but a few within our legislative branches.
~ Obviously we walk the halls of different schools of thought....ya think?

Yeah the clunker stimulus plan is sure selling Toyotas and Hondas and making the Japonese richer.

bullpcp,

I don't believe I stated, implied or insinuated that the majority of either party consisted of white collar or professional people or even that somehow well-educated people were superior in their understanding of the issues.

My purpose was to refute the notion that President Obama somehow "slipped in under the radar" to become the Democratic nominee for President when all we knew about him was that he was a charismatic speaker who stood for "Change." My circle of friends and acquaintances extends pretty well across the full spectrum from rich to poor and from well to poorly educated. But limiting my discussion just for the moment to the well-educated, I would not for a single instant entertain the argument that they tend not to be aware of the candidates for whom they cast their votes.

My well-educated friends and acquaintances tend to come from a range of occupations: doctors, lawyers, engineers, college professors, K-12 teachers, accountants and businesspeople who tend to have either undergraduate degrees in some area of business (management, marketing, finance, etc) or some type of undergraduate degree followed by an MBA.

Certainly, some are more politically "plugged in" than others. Further, like just about everybody in the country, they tend to focus more on issues that directly affect their lives or caeers -- or that simply tend to engage their curiosity for whatever reason -- than other issues. So, for example, a radiologist may understand healthcare policy forward and backwards and simply not be all that interested in debtor/creditor policies.

But in this past national election cycle more so, perhaps, than any in memory they were pretty univerally engaged. Americans in general seem to have short memories, but bear in mind that for many months that portion of society was abuzz with the possibility that we would have our first WOMAN president, let alone our first President who was partially of African American descent. For over a year I frankly have a hard time remembering a single lunch, dinner or other get-together when a comparison of the candidates' views on several different policies did not occur at some point.

Nobody could possibly be CERTAIN of the kind of President Obama would be, any more that one could have been certain of McCain. The nature of the job is simply such that it is necessarily shaped by the particular challenges of the time. I have sometimes wondered, for example, what Lincoln's legacy would have been had his Presidency not coincided with the Civil War. Likewise FDR, Truman and World War II, Jefferson and the opportunity to make the Louisiana Purchase, Herbert Hoover and the Great Depression, and even George W. Bush in the absence of 9/11 (in that last case, I am guessing he would now be viewed as merely incompetent instead of a national disaster...but who knows? He may have found a way to invade Iraq even WITHOUT 9/11).

As to the point about the well-educated and common sense, I quite sincerely wish that you simply had not made it. I have heard some version of the expression that "people who are book-smart lack common sense" so many times over the years that it frankly makes me want to barf. To me, it ranks up there with the notion that beautiful people are necessarily shallow or narcissistic or that rich people are necessarily selfish.

For one thing, anyone who is smart enough to understand that they are likely to greatly benefit from reading books or obtaining a college education has demonstrated with that simple understanding ALONE that they have SOME degree of common sense. But even aside from that, I would truly enjoy watching someone try to prove some relationship between higher education and a LACK of common sense. Despite the surface absurdity of the notion, I would even try very, very hard to keep an open mind. I am just a little skeptical that common sense is a commodity reserved for the UNeducated...simply seems to defy...common sense...

plusaf

I feel you man. I don't know how to explain any more clearly how redistributing wealth doesn't create wealth but destroys it. People seem to have been told for so long the government "gives" them things for "free" that they can no longer comprehend how it isn't so. It no longer seems possible to ask the most obvious questions like, how much will it cost, how will we pay for it, and what are we giving up to do so, without it turning into a farcical left vs right ad hoc attack rhetorical debate.

Reptilian jealous logic seems to have convinced most that another's wealth somehow makes them poorer. This defies logic in a world of ,what was once unimaginable wealth and prosperity for all even our poorest. Somehow people still cling to the old slice of the pie analogy. If wealth were truly as limited as they make it out to be we would be everyone in the US would be one seventieth as wealthy as our US ancestors in 1800. The simple truth that wealth is created and destroyed seems to have escaped people and the idea that some create more wealth than others seems to contradict some socialist's egalitarian concept of fairness. You can't make people equal except by tearing everyone down to the lowest common denominator all you can do is give everyone as equal an opportunity to succeed as practical and allow them the chance to succeed or fail based upon their own merit, and of course enjoy the fruits of their labors.

cztheday

First of all I made a mistake. I do apologize. I shouldn't have allowed myself the destructive luxury of a rant. An over simplistic interpretation of the data was to nobodies benefit and was probably more destructive than constructive. I try to reign in my passion whether positive or negative and post something thoughtful and relevant. I became temporarily overwhelmed by my frustration with general level of party members candidate policy knowledge. I find it very difficult to contain my frustration at the amount of rhetoric that is accepted as genuine policy by members of both parties. I believe we must demand more of ourselves and certainly more of our representatives in terms of concrete policy and not fall into the old tired trap of popularity politics.

I'm not saying that there are not some very politically savvy well educated individuals in both parties. What I am saying is that they are the minority. These well educated and informed people are, of course, disproportionately represented in the primaries. I realize the Democrats have a higher proportion of white collar and college educated individuals in it. This does not mean that the majority of the party are white collar professionals or are college educated. The majority of both parties are not white collar professionals or well educated. These people represent the minority in both parties.

As far as well informed members of both parties go, I have been severely disappointing in the low level of discourse and general knowledge of the majority of their members. Many of the members I talked to, chatted with, have seen on television, and the polls I've read show a disturbing lack of knowledge about the policies espoused by their candidates and only a general rhetorical knowledge about the party line. Their level of knowledge about other parties could best be summed up as they suck.

As far as the emphasis placed on higher education and white collar workers. The phrase "An idea so stupid it could only be the product of higher education." comes to mind. Many people with higher education have no more idea about the basics of economic realities that the average day laborer and many don't have the most basic understanding of math or any other natural sciences. What they often do posses is an overblown sense of their own intellectual superiority. Many of the people I know with the most education left their common sense behind long ago. In fact look at the richest people in the world and the education level of millionaires and you will find a distinct trend toward less education.

I'm not trying to exaggerate the differences between the educated and less educated members of society. I'm only pointing out that higher education does not necessarily translate into a better understanding of money, basic economics, or for that matter policy decisions.

Instead of bailing out Wall Street, it would have been better to bail out Main Street; using "trickle up" economics. Paying off the mortgages would have been cheaper than handing out trillions to banks with largely foreign ownership.

Two things that let me know early on that Obama was a fraud:
1. He supposedly supports civil liberties, but he supported giving telecom companies immunity for illegally wiretapping on people's phones.
2. Obama supported a bailout of the people that have caused the most problems for the US economy. They shouldn't have gotten baildout. They should have gotten jailed out.
People still supported him. People say Ron Paul has a cult following? I would say that Obama has the biggest cult of all.

I can't say that I am overjoyed with the choices with which we are often presented between the two major parties. I mean, John Kerry versus George W. Bush? Hello? Ranking each of those candidates on a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 being Abraham Lincoln and 1 being, well, George W. Bush, we voters were faced with the daunting task of choosing between a 2 and a 1. With a wink and a smile, we went out to the polls and elected...the 1...sigh.

But therein lies a portion of the problem of "tearing down and starting anew" as proposed by Ragan in the preceding post. We are ALWAYS going to be free to elect incompetence no matter HOW many parties are open to us. Remember, even in THAT disastrous election, we had MANY other choices during the respective party primaries. We the voters simply managed to pick the worst of the Democrats to run against the worst of the Republicans.

And it's not like this was a fluke, for heaven's sake. Does anybody remember Mondale vs. Reagan? A 2 versus a 2? Inspiring stuff indeed.

But things get even trickier when we start talking about "breaking up think tanks." Don't get me wrong. There are times, for example, when I would like to see the Cato Institute go the way of...well...Cato -- as in: long since deceased.

But this is the land of the free and the home of the brave. In a country that prides itself almost above all else on its twin freedoms of assembly (the right to get together with your like-minded fellows and change things...gosh doesn't that sound a lot like what Ragan is proposing?) and speech (hard to change things if you're not allowed to talk about them), on what grounds are we going to break such groups up?

Because we don't like them assembling together, or we don't like what they are saying? Kind of pitches our Constitution out with the bath water doesn't it?

Now, if those think tanks are doing something unlawful (and we can prove it -- a pesky little requirement, but the alternative is tyranny, and we have pretty much said as a country that we are AGAINST the "t word" -- unless it is happening in a country that holds oil reserves important to our standard of living...but that is another debate for another thread) we can take them down in all sorts of creative ways, usually involving either one really good attorney (the proverbial "sharp instrument") or a veritable RAFT of them (blunt).

The thing is, of course, none of this is necessary. There is no law against creating political parties in the United States. After all, even the major parties we have NOW didn't always exist in their present form. But few people are willing to do what is necessary to create a viable third party, because they want that third party to win the Presidency in the next election cycle rather than taking the approach of virtually every other enterprise in the nation's history.

Be a little more realistic and a lot more willing to roll up your sleeves, and concentrate on fielding a few candidates for state legislative offices...maybe even within a single state. In the next cycle, elect a few more and maybe encourage one or two of the first batch to run for higher office. And so forth. Yeah it might take 20 to 25 years for your party to have real influence at the national level...but you could also have both the depth and the breadth to have a viable party for the long haul instead of watching the latest Ross Perot flashback in which the entire party disintegrates if one unrealistic campaign fails...

Just sayin'

A lot of problems exist in our political and politics is the major problem. The two party system in place now and for the past; what, one hundred years? I that you must vote for one of the two parties. Well when both parties are corrupt =, it sure as hell isn't same to vote for the lesser of two evils because this just doesn't exist. As long as politicians are elected by the greatest amount of money then the government will be corrupt. When the politicians rely on money from the many voters then we may have a half of a chance of getting someone who isn't corrupt. And as long as it is the electoral college who selects the Presidaent the system will be corrupt because corporate America can more easily buy the delegates and who is ever going to check their bank balances? And to insure that the corporations maintain control of the through the two party system they will tell the people that voting other than Dem ot Rep will elect the wrong man. The CFR and the Bilderbergers can also control the two party system as it stands and hence control the world. The Federal Reserve systen also has a big part of the election process because they cannot afford to allow anyone other than a Democrate or Republican to win because that would mean they are losing control. So listen up suckers, Isnt is about time to break up this family of corporate/ lords of finance control and let freedom and free enterprise free competition take over and run this nation. Break up the monopolies that have been in control, misnamed think tanks. They are the corrupt historical powers that make profits from bloodshen and war. No eighteen year olds or highschool graduates are safe as long as the CFR controlled two party system is in place.

Eleganza,

Since you cited me (where do I send the check?) I don't want to be self-serving here. But your point is, of course, an excellent one (the part about Paul's leverage, not the crackpot part -- God, what idiot said THAT?).

Very, very few Republican member of Congress have any use for Ron Paul. Many of them doubtless feel that every vote that went to Ron Paul last November SHOULD have gone to John McCain -- and that a truly loyal Republican would have worked his butt off to ensure that result once it became clear that he had no legitimate shot at the White House himself. Any sane, rational person in Paul's position would have known that to be true MONTHS before the election occurred. And surely everybody on this thread knows that Republicans are not particularly known for their loving forgiveness of those they feel to be disloyal to the party.

On the Democratic side...well, let's just say that Paul would at best be starting at Ground Zero as far as credibility, political goodwill, and "favors owed" are concerned.

And bullpcp, after just praising one of your posts, I HOPE I am not hearing you say that all Americans really knew about President Obama and Senator McCain was that one was for Change and the other was a Maverick. That view is too cynical even for ME. But I trust that is NOT what you are saying.

I am "blown away" by the latest allegations to the effect that those who voted for President Obama did not really understand for whom they were voting. Really. So you REALLY think that the candidate the polls said received the overwhelming share of votes from professional and college-educated voters managed to pass himself off as a "mystery candidate?" I gather, then, that you missed that whole, inconvenient Democratic Primary thing in which we parsed through a half-dozen exceptionally well-educated candidates before selecting one who was NOT the front-runner at the beginning?

Sigh.

Eleganza

My idea of an accomplished president is one that does the least amount of harm. I would be happy to have Ron Paul as president just so he could veto every irrational suicidal bill that crossed his desk, unfortunately this would refer to almost all legislation. I would have loved to have had him in the white house to stop all this bail out madness and he wouldn't have had to have had much support to accomplish this.

Every citizen citizen of the United States of America "is in a position of superior authority that qualifies him to judge President Obama." as well as all government officials. They are after all, our civil servants.

Ron Paul was excluded from many debates and slandered after he dared to suggest, by quoting the pentagons own report written by their experts on the middle east, that we may have done something to make the suicide bombers from the middle east angry, that perhaps they weren't completely irrational and insane. Then they twisted his words and outright lied and said Ron Paul said we deserved everything we got. All the polls suggested he won the debates by a large margin.

As far as winning having anything to do the merits of ones ideas... you have got to be kidding me. Most democrats didn't have a clue about Obama's ideas. They did poles that suggested he simultaneously supported mutually exclusive and contradictory political positions. I remember seeing interviews with different people right after a speech by Obama where somehow different people from the same speech thought he supported their opposing views. I'll give him credit for being an excellent politician, it takes a lot to convince people you support both sides of a political debate. One thing people new for sure was that Obama was for "Change" and McCain was a "Maverick".

I believe that voting for the lesser of two evils year after year is the problem. It is this selfish pragmatism that has infected the government and corrupted the nation. The politicians must get elected so they promise everyone everything they want and people vote for them because they are taught since kindergarten to believe the government is there to help them. Politicians trade votes because they must get their own pet bills passed. And we the people are all ways the ones to pay the price.

So I'll not be part of the problem and vote for the lesser of two evils. I'll vote for what I believe in not because they will win but because it is the right thing to do and if enough people do the right thing for long enough good things will happen.

~ I believe not, and I'm not sure that he really would want to take a run at it again either.
~ But I do think that he can and will remain the flash-point of awareness and the clarion call for change and alternative reform so desperately needed in the house and senate.
~ And just like you Eleganza, the voters judged Ron Paul "inferior", simply because he did not lie to them and promise them a warm and cozy home with a car in the garage and a chicken in every pot.... people don't want to be told the "way it is", but the "way they wish it to be"... voting with emotions instead of common sense (which isn't common much anymore) seemingly is the standard voter M/O these days!

To all who jumped up and down on my response to this post, I am hoping that all of you are old enough to remember President Carter. I've never read anywhere that he was an unethical or devious man, most agree he is of sound moral character and is a fine American. He was also one of the least accomplished presidents in the modern era, primarily because he had very few connections in DC, and scant support even from his own party. Now if you think he was impotent I am willing to bet that Ron Paul would make Jimmy Carter look like one of the most accomplished presidents since George Washington.
Where is his support within congress? I am yet to see his own party elevate him, and if his own party see him as an outsider, or as CZ alluded to him as a crackpot, that is a man who will be a lame duck from day one.
What annoys me about the guy is his presumption that he is in a position of superior authority that qualifies him to judge President Obama. Both men presented their ideas and plans to the public and the voters judged Ron Pauls inferior to those of even John McCain...and we saw where McCains ideas got him in the last election...you do the math and be honest with yourselves, do you honestly think Ron Paul has a hope in Hell of ever getting elected?

http://schiffathon.com/
for all of you who think ron paul's message is dead, take a look at that website. it's a money bomb for peter schiff, ron paul's economic advisor during his presidential campaign, who has raised nearly 700,000 dollars just today. he is thinking about running for senate. he hasn't even decided to run, and has raised that much, just today.

I think a government with at least a basic understanding that spending money and consuming are not the same as producing and saving and understand which one produces wealth and which one destroys it.

Ron Paul says, " Similarly, the mythical separation of church and state doctrine has no historical or constitutional basis. Neither the language of the Constitution itself nor the legislative history reveals any mention of such separation. In fact, the authors of the First amendment ... routinely referred to "Almighty God" in their writings, including the Declaration of Independence. It is only in the last 50 years that federal courts have perverted the meaning of the amendment and sought to unlawfully restrict religious expression."

Denial of the seperation of chuch and state is a scary thing

tittle should say gets a D. and he says its not Obama's fault. I love Ron Paul.

Where we are now is a result of decades of greed in corporate America. We are in the mess and painful condition now because of the mis-management of corporate-controlled government. California Public Utility Commission is a classic example of a corrupt-government run, corporate-controlled organization.

What this country needs now is a real cure. We desperately need to remove the cancer that is killing us: the REPUBLICANS, a.k.a "domestic delusional terrorists".

I'm sorry, i don't think a libertarian goverment is what we need right now. I mean, if we're "socialist" now and we can't trust private industry how could we trust privatising everything? At least we can push these bureaucrats out of office. It's a little harder doing that to a private company. Don't they know sometimes you have to spend money to make money. Obama Can't wave a magic hope wand and make this all go away in under a year, this stuff takes time.

cztheday you wrote "...but just because Mr. Paul has hit upon a way of describing them that brings the light of understanding to your eyes does NOT make him a modern-day Abraham Lincoln...or even a modern-day Teddy Roosevelt...or even a modern-day Woodrow Wilson, for heaven's sake. To me, he sounds OK -- as long as he sticks to simply re-wording the principles our country has stood for pretty much for ever --{ but ANYBODY could do that.}

- - Yes they could do that .... but they DON'T.!.!

There are far to many people focused on making their ''nut'' with damned little time to ponder the complexities of government affairs that affect their lives, all the while being spoon fed deception and biased propaganda by MSM and mis-led by politicians who are representing themselves instead of their constituency (who, by the way, they talk down to as if they don't understand) ...
....and the irony of it all is that they (much of the populace) in fact really don't understand the issues because damned few politicians actually care enough to articulate them with clarity and truth ....
..It is time for change...

http://kickthemallout.com/images/eNews/BackwardGunAd.jpg

You are all doing a good job of blaming each other (conservative and liberal), which helps draw the attention away from the true swindlers, the money handlers. I thought Ron Paul was beyond this, but this proves me wrong.

Mr. Paul has come dangerously close to racism (many would say that he crossed the line completely). He has also taken a number of positions over the years that would be called "crackpot" even if one was being charitable.

But what baffles me most about him is that his biggest source of support seems to come from the fact that he is Captain Obvious. I mean, he makes these pronouncements all the time about things like "how Congress works," and he is lauded by all these people as a genius when all he has done was to take a topic that anybody with any familiarity with the political system already knows and understands...and dumbs that topic down for the masses.

To many of his most ardent supporters I almost want to say, "Look, I am sorry that you didn't previously understand these basic, common sense principles of government that have been around for decades if not centuries -- but just because Mr. Paul has hit upon a way of describing them that brings the light of understanding to your eyes does NOT make him a modern-day Abraham Lincoln...or even a modern-day Teddy Roosevelt...or even a modern-day Woodrow Wilson, for heaven's sake.

To me, he sounds OK -- as long as he sticks to simply re-wording the principles our country has stood for pretty much for ever -- but ANYBODY could do that. Where he gets himself in trouble is when he tries to strike off into uncharted territory. He frankly does not do that very often anymore (certainly not with the frequency he did just a few years ago). I think somewhere deep down he knows that is what gets him into trouble, and he does not want to sacrifice this newfound and rather inexplicable popularity he now enjoys. He knows perfectly well that his last opportunity to sit in the White House passed him by seven or eight months ago.

But he CAN remain relevant in his declining years if he doesn't blunder badly. He could even be a spoiler like Ralph Nader if the proper scenario played out. A possibility that occurs to me that Mitt Romney may be able to pull one more good, strong campaign out of his @ss. If President Obama is still struggling to pull the economy out of the doldrums by the next election, someone like Romney -- Mr. Manager meets Mr. Entrepreneur -- might match up well against him. It would then be very interesting to see which of the two candidates Paul could hurt (or help) most by the proportion of votes he would take from each of those two candidates.

Of course, there is a LOT of ground to cover by then, and any one of those men could mak a misstep so disastrous as to make them "political roadkill" by the next election cycle.

In my opinion Ron Paul is just a modern day Ross Perot..back then he had a following that was just as sure that he was the answer...all I'm saying is that outside of his loyal following he has no influence...sooth sayer that you guys think he is aside, get back to me when he actually gets something done....Ross Perot had hours of television time with his flip charts and his famous " giant sucking sound " and the " where the rubber meets the road " quotes, but beyond that, he is just a footnote in a history book, I predict the same thing for Ron Paul. I'm not hating on the guy, I just think he makes a great deal of noise but is irrelevant.

My instincts tell me that this country is on its way out. Our civilization is in decline and will eventually collapse. People have become selfish, egotistical, greedy, self important, and there is virtually no compassion and love left in the world. There are some amazing people, don't get me wrong, I am not saying that everybody is fucked up, but the majority is fucked up.

There was a study done and I cannot remember the source, I am tired it has been a long day, that stated that one third of the population is psychotic, one third is rational and critical thinkers and the other third are sheeple. That means that two thirds are not in a position to make rational judgments about anything.

Most rational people can look at the way things are going and see that we don't have the same country we used to have. Our money is controlled by private corporations. That means that everything about our lives is controlled and contrived. True freedom is an illusion unless you want to be homeless or shaking up in the forest somewhere, living off what little land is left that doesn't have some ranger waiting to charge you $25 per night to pitch a tent.

Even though I don't like many of the acolytes of Ron Paul in the way they spread their message, I have listened to him and I have read his book. Many things he says ring true to me. I have read Naomi Wolf and seen her film. I watch Olbermann and Maddow on CNN. I have even watched several Alex Jones videos. (I try to keep an open mind.) Hell I have watched both Zeitgest films, and was into Ramtha for a while. He/She was talking about all these things decades before they happened and continue to happen.

True personal freedom is Anarchy. Anarchy is what most people with money fear the most. Anarchy is the opposite of Slavery. Slavery is what having corporations issue currency has created on a world wide scale. Real money like gold and silver is almost gone.

It will not end well for most. I can see wheel barrels full of worthless bank notes in our future. I can see campfires being lit with greenbacks in our future. I can see chaos and civil unrest leading to mayhem and heavy gov't crackdowns in our future as people come to the sudden realization that we are rats trapped in a cage.

No wonder Jesus said, Happy are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth. Meek people aren't aware of anything around them, their too busy being meek.

OK I am done ranting for tonite.

What is elegant about Eleganza? Is he perhaps from the Rush Limburg school of Hate and disinformation? How about Locutus or Locust. He thinks Ron Paul is a cult. I wonder if either of these men ever visited "You Tube" to watch the Video's of:
John Perkins
Michael Ruppert
Howard Zinn
Gore Vidal
George Carlin
Richard Dawkins
Noam Chomsky
Naomi Wolfe
Bill Moyers Secret Governmant is another

Instead of name calling why not just visit "You Tube" and learn some free thinking truth for a change instead of listening to a bunch of cheap foreign agents and neocons.

This is the easy way to learn who is a cult and who is not. And it is easier than reading. Ron Paul is a man who has the Guts to speak out and risk's his life to do so. Go back over our past history and learn about many of the men in our society have been asassinated for speaking up and opposing the real monsters who are leading our society daily and have been for years. I suppose you don't consider the CFR or the Tri Lateral Commission or the Bilderbergers a Cult, Huh? If not What are they?
I almost forgot; Kieth Olbermann has spoken this week on the "Legislators for Sale" and how much they sold out for. Obama tops the list with $18,000,000 folowed by many others. I suggest you listen to MSNBC's Kieth Olbermann and then decide who is a fathead.

If you guys are fans of the Pauls (or even if you're not!) you should check this out: http://current.com/items/90599195_help-us-interview-dr-rand-paul.htm

The US Politics group is interviewing Dr. Rand Paul and they are looking for questions from community members to ask him!

Ron Paul is a political hack, a minor figure with a crazed cult following. He is hard to take seriously.

His opinion of President Obama counts for very little.

ron and rand are both dead on about everything they said. obama/bush/bernanke's inflation will make our country look like weimar germany if it continues.

Great article!
True!
When we get the opportunity to learn something, we shouldnot be so smug and egocentric. We should learn new things when they come along. Some things aren't really new, but they should be appreciated when they are presented in a different way.

Mike, I agree...I did take the time to watch the video ....... and it absolutely escapes me how anyone with a modicum of common sense can overlook the simple realities and truths spoken by the Pauls about factors of economics.

It goes without saying that far to many just do not want to hear that these problems will not be solved until painful measures to heal the economic hemorrhaging are initiated.

.... But then, if the remedy is not "instant" and gratifying, the "Now" generation just doesn't want to hear or even consider it.

News flash Eleganza et al, If people don't actually take the time to reflect on the clarion call of the Pauls and others of similar insights, they, in time not to distant in the future, will be foremost of those who whine.

Ron and Rand are Right...as usual

So Ron Paul gives him an F. Yaaawwnn what else is new. This fucking whiner is so full of himself it's sickening...News Flash for Ron Paul. Nobody gives a damn about what you think....

Why is everybody excusing Obama for his insincerity? Sure The incompetent nincompoop George Bush screwed everything up but the people kept the bloody ass in power for eight years and during that time not one worthless congessman or Senator was replaced. The public kept Bush and congress and the Senate in power even though many of us were calling it foul play. Bush sent those thousands of kids to their deaths and now Obama is just continuiing the same policy. No one is coming home from Afghanistan soon, not walking at least. Obama promised to end the war yet there may soon be more kids sent over ther to die for more minerals and earthly wealth. Bush started it but the real beginning started two hundred years ago when Americans really lost control of Government. The people did not standup to prevent the takeover of America in 1913 nor at any other time in history. The country made for "we the people" lost to "we the government" many years ago along with its checks and balances. Obama did not inherit a mess from Bush. America has been a mess for far too long to be acceptable. Who would have ever dreamed that our nations capital would be fenced in and an Army of secret Service protecting the Government people from the very people it is supposed to represent? Would it be different if it were a government of the People?? I wonder.

I agree with Dr Ron Paul though, it is not all Obama's fault. Bush started most of this and unfortunately Obama is only speeding up the big government train.