<p>Ron Paul is speeding ahead in last minute 3rd quarter fundraising. <a href="http://www.ronpaul2008.com%5B/url%5D">http://www.ronpaul2008.com</a></p>
<p>Ron Paul participated in today's (9/27/07) Baltimore PBS debate. Video should be available soon.</p>
<p>Stephen Colbert For President '08!</p>
<p>I like Ron Paul. I think I might even Facebook him and let everyone know what a crazy libertarian I am!</p>
<p>Here's an interesting observation: go to Google trends and search for Ron Paul against one of the top-tier candidates of the GOP and look at the discrepancy between search volume and media coverage.
For example, here's Paul vs. Giuliani:
<a href="http://www.google.com/trends?q=ron+paul%2Crudy+giuliani%5B/url%5D">http://www.google.com/trends?q=ron+paul%2Crudy+giuliani</a></p>
<p>This is why true progressive candidates have virtually no chance: mass media determine who the "front-runners" are, and the average voter doesn't hear about anyone else.</p>
<p>I love to listen to Ron Paul speak; he makes me think! Sometimes I laugh, sometimes I get mad, but I always am forced to clarify my own positions on subjects.</p>
<p>The main thing about Ron Paul that annoys me is that he wants to abolish the income tax. I don't see how this would help anyone, except maybe the rich.</p>
<p>Oh, I would absolute worship Mr. Paul if he COULD abolish my income tax.</p>
<p>If he could abolish your income tax...but not everybody elses? If he did that for me, I would vote for him, but I don't think anybody else would...</p>
<p>
[quote]
This is why true progressive candidates have virtually no chance: mass media determine who the "front-runners" are, and the average voter doesn't hear about anyone else.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Exactly - this is one of the main reasons that I can't stand the MM (mainstream media). There are such extreme biases that shape people's opinions, and it makes me so mad sometimes. But then I realize that people are stupid if they don't take news reports and think critically about them and it makes me feel better :)</p>
<p>
[quote]
If he could abolish your income tax...but not everybody elses? If he did that for me, I would vote for him, but I don't think anybody else would...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think she means that this policy would be a tough sell to the congress....</p>
<p>I figured that much out, but I couldn't resist pouncing on the obvious (and intentional) hyprocrisy.</p>
<p>well I don't see it, but okay if you say so...</p>
<p>In any case, I'm happy there is a fair amoung of support for Ron Paul, even on this board. He has a huge following among us gun owners since he's the only candidate who is truly in support of the 2nd amendment (hell, the constitution in general). The Democrats only support it as much as they have to because the assault weapons ban screwed them in 94.</p>
<p>Go Ron Paul! :D</p>
<p>Ron Paul only supports the letter of the Constitution, not the spirit of it.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
well I don't see it, but okay if you say so...
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Look closely. Read the words aloud. Savor them. Notice the word "my".</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
he's the only candidate who is truly in support of the 2nd amendment (hell, the constitution in general).
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Not quite. The Constitution was partially designed to keep what the Federalists thought of as an uneducated mob out of power (of course, I disagree with this, but whatever). About the 2nd Amendment, notice that it says that its primary purpose is the maintenance of militias. Sorry, but the only militia I know of is a little cramped museum on top of Faneuil Hall.</p>
<p>I just wanted to tell everyone, in my little Tennessee town (little city?) full of hardcore Southern Baptists and Republicans, I saw a sign that said "Google Ron Paul". I was flabbergasted. Awesome.</p>
<p>They even got the Google colors right! Just a little wooden stenciled sign. Awesome.</p>
<p>Ron Paul has raised ONE MILLION dollars in 6 days, one day ahead of schedule, just before the end of the 3rd quarter. Ron Paul is speeding ahead!</p>
<p><a href="http://www.ronpaul2008.com%5B/url%5D">http://www.ronpaul2008.com</a></p>
<p>
[quote]
Ron Paul only supports the letter of the Constitution, not the spirit of it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not true- all those people who want the constitution to be interpreted as a "living document" or whatever other bs they're saying haven't actually read the federalist papers and other writings of the people who actually wrote the thing. The "spirit" of the constitution becomes rather clear.... and its not what most liberals want to hear.</p>
<p>
[quote]
About the 2nd Amendment, notice that it says that its primary purpose is the maintenance of militias. Sorry, but the only militia I know of is a little cramped museum on top of Faneuil Hall.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, if you look at it, you'll notice that the militia clause isn't the focus. Basically, read it like this: "Because a well-armed populace (note: this is the original meaning of militia) is necessary for the safety and security of a free country, the right of the people to own and carry arms shall not be infringed". Again, the federalist papers, etc. back me up on this one. Lets take this to PM or a new thread if you care to argue this more so this doesn't get dragged off topic.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Not true- all those people who want the constitution to be interpreted as a "living document" or whatever other bs they're saying haven't actually read the federalist papers and other writings of the people who actually wrote the thing. The "spirit" of the constitution becomes rather clear.... and its not what most liberals want to hear.
[/quote]
The very purpose of the Constitution is CLEARLY to be a "living document". Heck, have you ever taken a class on Government? Or even read the Constitution? And no, the Federalist Papers do NOT back you up on this. If you can point out where the Federalist Papers say that the Constitution should be an immutable, timeless document, have your go. The authors of the Constitution even thought that they would have to get together and write a NEW Constitution in 20 or 30 years. But they were pleasantly surprised that they didn't have to, BECAUSE of its flexibility.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The very purpose of the Constitution is CLEARLY to be a "living document".
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ah yes, clearly :rolleyes: - because of the article of the constitution that makes it so easy to change so we can just change things we don't like at a whim....</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you can point out where the Federalist Papers say that the Constitution should be an immutable, timeless document, have your go
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Thats not what I said - I said that they back up my originalist/textualist interpretation of the constitution (obviously), and not the "living document" theory.</p>
<p>
[quote]
[There's] the argument of flexibility and it goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break. But you would have to be an idiot to believe that; the Constitution is not a living organism; it is a legal document. It says something and doesn't say other things . . . [Proponents of the living constitution want matters to be decided] not by the people, but by the justices of the Supreme Court . . . They are not looking for legal flexibility, they are looking for rigidity, whether it's the right to abortion or the right to homosexual activity, they want that right to be embedded from coast to coast and to be unchangeable</p>
<p>-Justice Scalia
[/quote]
</p>