Yep. Ron Paul is insane to think that our government should actually follow the Constitution instead of ignoring it. Only someone certifiable would ever believe that our politicians should actually uphold their oaths of office instead of pandering for their own interests. What a nutjob!

Yep. Ron Paul is insane to think that our government should actually follow the Constitution instead of ignoring it. Only someone certifiable would ever believe that our politicians should actually uphold their oaths of office instead of pandering for their own interests.

What a nutjob!

Ron Paul is a non-issue in the upcomming primaries, Not to mention any sort of chance in the election

Ron Paul is a non-issue in the upcomming primaries, Not to mention any sort of chance in the election

The republican nomination may be lost, but if Ron Paul wishes, I believe he could be a hugely disruptive 3rd party candidate in 2008. He will dwarf the impact of Ross Perot some 16 years ago.

The republican nomination may be lost, but if Ron Paul wishes, I believe he could be a hugely disruptive 3rd party candidate in 2008. He will dwarf the impact of Ross Perot some 16 years ago.

Are supporters of other candidates like Guilani, Obama, and Hillary NOT tech savy? Surely they have savy supporters. Right? Who was TIME magazine's person of the year? "You" were. Right now, TIME magazine's person of the year is favoring Ron Paul. That's pretty significant.

Are supporters of other candidates like Guilani, Obama, and Hillary NOT tech savy? Surely they have savy supporters. Right?

Who was TIME magazine's person of the year? "You" were.

Right now, TIME magazine's person of the year is favoring Ron Paul. That's pretty significant.

My problem with Ron Paul is that he lives in a world in which the constitution and the free market will always deliver solutions to society's needs. this is so obviously not true. there comes a time when a document written 220 years ago may need some modification. i care less about his staunch constitutionalism than his ideas about free market capitalism. he is very black and white on this issue: markets good, government bad. I have a problem with the idea that the free market will generate the most desirable outcomes. health care is a blaring example of how a largely unregulated health insurance market is failing to meet society's needs. paul wants to get rid of health insurance, for the most part, and divorce employment from health care. I admire that he recognizes these systems are flawed, but i think it is stubbornly naive to think that completely unregulated markets produce the best outcomes (presumably the highest quality of life) for the greatest number of people. on a spectrum of advanced, free market verses coordinated market societies, the united states stands at the far end, on the side of the free market. canada, britain, australia, and new zealand cluster on that side of the spectrum also. This isn't to say that we don't have our fair share of regulation. if life is truly enhanced by less government regulation, then the U.S. should be full of the happiest, most fulfilled people in the world. the problem i have with many of the conservatives is this fear of "socialized health care." what the hell is so bad about "socialized" health care? the French system has it's flaws, the Swedish system has it's flaws, the Danish system has it's flaws, but at least they aren't suffering the massive health care crisis that an unregulated health insurance market delivered the U.S. i'm all for capitalism, but it has it's limits. regulation is good some of the time too. it all depends on the type of regulation.

My problem with Ron Paul is that he lives in a world in which the constitution and the free market will always deliver solutions to society's needs. this is so obviously not true. there comes a time when a document written 220 years ago may need some modification. i care less about his staunch constitutionalism than his ideas about free market capitalism. he is very black and white on this issue: markets good, government bad. I have a problem with the idea that the free market will generate the most desirable outcomes. health care is a blaring example of how a largely unregulated health insurance market is failing to meet society's needs. paul wants to get rid of health insurance, for the most part, and divorce employment from health care. I admire that he recognizes these systems are flawed, but i think it is stubbornly naive to think that completely unregulated markets produce the best outcomes (presumably the highest quality of life) for the greatest number of people.

on a spectrum of advanced, free market verses coordinated market societies, the united states stands at the far end, on the side of the free market. canada, britain, australia, and new zealand cluster on that side of the spectrum also. This isn't to say that we don't have our fair share of regulation. if life is truly enhanced by less government regulation, then the U.S. should be full of the happiest, most fulfilled people in the world.

the problem i have with many of the conservatives is this fear of "socialized health care." what the hell is so bad about "socialized" health care? the French system has it's flaws, the Swedish system has it's flaws, the Danish system has it's flaws, but at least they aren't suffering the massive health care crisis that an unregulated health insurance market delivered the U.S.

i'm all for capitalism, but it has it's limits. regulation is good some of the time too. it all depends on the type of regulation.

Bethany, Ron Paul agrees with what you are saying regarding the Constitution, as would the founders. The system is designed so it can be modified to adapt to new developments, wisdom, and situations. Amendments are precisely that mechanism. That said, the process of amending the Constitution was intentionally designed to be a slow and deliberate process. This protects the document from radical changes based on irrational fears or temporary trends etc. What Ron Paul says regarding the Constitution is that we must at least follow it. As you point out, if we don't like something about it then it can be amended according to the process that has served this country well for 220+ years. However, as Ron Paul has said repeatedly, the worst thing that we can do is to IGNORE it! Unfortunately, that is precisely what is happening today and has happened increasingly since WWII. If we ignore the supreme law of the land and allow the politicians to do as they please then our great Constitutional Republic is a heartbeat away from extinction. The great experiment which has lifted so many millions up, become the greatest, freest society humankind has ever known has died. If we choose to ignore this law, then why not ignore that law? If we can pre-emptively invade or attack a country without declaring war, then why can't any other country? If we can torture that person, why not this citizen? Slippery slope indeed. The healthcare system is not a free market system and dismissing free market principles based on a comparison to it is not fair to do. Ron Paul is only candidate to point out (and the only one that understands because he has practiced medicine for years) that our system, before government got involved and created the third-party payor system, worked infinitely better than what we have today. Be careful not to confuse a free market with one that is regulated by the government for the benefit of special interest lobbies. That is corporatism, not free market capitalism. When the powerful can influence the laws, win subsidies, and gain protections from government there is no free market. That is the healthcare system we have today and Ron Paul is vehemently opposed to corporatism and government sponsored corporate welfare. There is a role for government in society. The problem is it has been distorted and twisted into a leviathan that no longer serves the people as it was intended. Social security is a perfect example of a well-intentioned program that should be providing a simple trust fund for citizens being abused, borrowed against, and used as a political lever. If you go to www.ronpaullibrary.org you can read pretty much everything Dr. Paul has written over the past 30 years on nearly every subject. It is worth the effort. Furthermore, if you do some research on his intellectual touchstone, Austrian Economic Theory, you may gain a greater appreciation for what free markets should and could be, and crucially how monetary theory is critical in determining the appropriate role of government and a just society (www.mises.org) I can tell you that I was an economics major at a liberal university and NEVER even heard the name Ludwig Von Mises, or Hayek, or Bastiat. I was stuffed to the gills with Keynes and Chicago school and the partisan statist rantings of Krugman. I can also tell you that when I stumbled upon this stuff, thanks to the internet, three years ago it was like a personal epiphany. Ron Paul is a recognized Austrian economist and these theories literally speak to the heart of the issues in my estimation and they are so simple and rational and based on most of what we already intuitively know. Liberating to say the least. One more thing about free market capitalism... In the history of mankind, no other system has lifted so many from the depths of poverty than capitalism. Before capitalism and the great open society that is America, upward mobility simply did not exist on such a grand scale for the common people. We have our problems and we will always have our problems but there is no greater system ever devised and we must protect it (we actually have a fair amount of work to do to try and return to what made it so great) or we will lose it forever. That is what Ron Paul believes in and that is why people believe in Ron Paul once they learn who he really is, beyond the smear, fear, and rhetoric.

Bethany,

Ron Paul agrees with what you are saying regarding the Constitution, as would the founders. The system is designed so it can be modified to adapt to new developments, wisdom, and situations. Amendments are precisely that mechanism. That said, the process of amending the Constitution was intentionally designed to be a slow and deliberate process. This protects the document from radical changes based on irrational fears or temporary trends etc.

What Ron Paul says regarding the Constitution is that we must at least follow it. As you point out, if we don't like something about it then it can be amended according to the process that has served this country well for 220+ years. However, as Ron Paul has said repeatedly, the worst thing that we can do is to IGNORE it! Unfortunately, that is precisely what is happening today and has happened increasingly since WWII. If we ignore the supreme law of the land and allow the politicians to do as they please then our great Constitutional Republic is a heartbeat away from extinction. The great experiment which has lifted so many millions up, become the greatest, freest society humankind has ever known has died. If we choose to ignore this law, then why not ignore that law? If we can pre-emptively invade or attack a country without declaring war, then why can't any other country? If we can torture that person, why not this citizen? Slippery slope indeed.

The healthcare system is not a free market system and dismissing free market principles based on a comparison to it is not fair to do. Ron Paul is only candidate to point out (and the only one that understands because he has practiced medicine for years) that our system, before government got involved and created the third-party payor system, worked infinitely better than what we have today. Be careful not to confuse a free market with one that is regulated by the government for the benefit of special interest lobbies. That is corporatism, not free market capitalism. When the powerful can influence the laws, win subsidies, and gain protections from government there is no free market. That is the healthcare system we have today and Ron Paul is vehemently opposed to corporatism and government sponsored corporate welfare.

There is a role for government in society. The problem is it has been distorted and twisted into a leviathan that no longer serves the people as it was intended. Social security is a perfect example of a well-intentioned program that should be providing a simple trust fund for citizens being abused, borrowed against, and used as a political lever.

If you go to www.ronpaullibrary.org you can read pretty much everything Dr. Paul has written over the past 30 years on nearly every subject. It is worth the effort. Furthermore, if you do some research on his intellectual touchstone, Austrian Economic Theory, you may gain a greater appreciation for what free markets should and could be, and crucially how monetary theory is critical in determining the appropriate role of government and a just society (www.mises.org) I can tell you that I was an economics major at a liberal university and NEVER even heard the name Ludwig Von Mises, or Hayek, or Bastiat. I was stuffed to the gills with Keynes and Chicago school and the partisan statist rantings of Krugman. I can also tell you that when I stumbled upon this stuff, thanks to the internet, three years ago it was like a personal epiphany. Ron Paul is a recognized Austrian economist and these theories literally speak to the heart of the issues in my estimation and they are so simple and rational and based on most of what we already intuitively know. Liberating to say the least.

One more thing about free market capitalism... In the history of mankind, no other system has lifted so many from the depths of poverty than capitalism. Before capitalism and the great open society that is America, upward mobility simply did not exist on such a grand scale for the common people. We have our problems and we will always have our problems but there is no greater system ever devised and we must protect it (we actually have a fair amount of work to do to try and return to what made it so great) or we will lose it forever. That is what Ron Paul believes in and that is why people believe in Ron Paul once they learn who he really is, beyond the smear, fear, and rhetoric.