Comments on: Ron Paul: Right on All Issues in Two Sentences or Less

By: Hit Him Again

Hit Him Again — Tue, 25 Dec 2007 03:46:43 +0000

As for the US being kicked out, they didn’t submit a representative because they would lose the election, so it depends on how you look at it.

Dr. Paul calls for the repeal of the 16th Amendment - which would be constitutional.

The 14th Amendment was never meant to give birthright citizenship. If someone immigrates in violation of US law, are they “under the jurisdiction” of the United States when they have a child here? The answer is no, but the meaning of the 14th Amendment has evolved in the court system over the years. Ron Paul proposes that we amend the Constitution to clarify the 14th Amendment - also a constitutional act.

Being a Constitutionalist does not mean freezing the constitution in its present state. It means respecting the constitution enough to amend it when you want to change it. We understood this as recently as prohibition, when a constitutional amendment was passed to outlaw alcohol (and another, thankfully, to repeal that ban). Yet, there has been no such forbearance for the war on drugs, department of education, etc. etc.

Ron Paul is a reminder to Congress that this is a nation of laws, not a nation of men.

By: Karl

Karl — Mon, 24 Dec 2007 14:10:02 +0000

The US was not ‘kicked out’ of the Human Rights Council, it chose not to submit a representative for election to the Council out of protest. Big difference.

I’m also unclear on how 2nd, 19th, and 13th Amendments are freely cited, yet Dr. Paul seems to forget all about the 16th Amendment when it comes to income tax and the 14th Amendment when trashing birthright citizenship.

By: Hit Him Again

Hit Him Again — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 22:47:06 +0000

joewo I'm not sure I understand your message, but I take it that you are of the opinion that Social Security serves a legitimate government interest. First, I believe it is erroneous to assume that people will starve in the streets during their old age. Yes, it will require more individual accountability, but the alternative to socialism is liberty, not helplessness. Second, assuming you are correct in that Social Security is a meritorious program, it should be implemented by the states. If the 10th amendment were reinvigorated, it would allow the states to compete amongst themselves as to what is the proper role of government. If people were worried for their retirement, they would flock to those states that implemented a Social Security program. I personally think that those states' experiments would fail by going broke just as our national experiment has - but who knows, you could be vindicated at a more local level. See also the US Declaration of Dependence.

By: joewo

joewo — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 06:49:25 +0000

Yeah!!!! Let’s all list how much money we have saved for retirement…divide by about $40,000 and tell me how many years you can live on your savings alone…especially easy in an America that has seen the dollar deflate by 30% in the past few years…and then let’s all promise to reutrn the Social Security checks to the government when we retire to prove that we really walk the walk in saying that Social Security is wrong!!! Those of you working for less than about $100,000 per year currently go to the front fo the line when they start passing out the free cheese blocks in a few decades to people like you who have not saved a dollar for retirement and still complain about Social Security being bad…of which there are million sof you. Next comment will include how tax cuts for people who do not pay taxes will be used to pay for their health care.

By: Ron Paul: Right on All Issues in Two Sentences or Less « Us Elections

Ron Paul: Right on All Issues in Two Sentences or Less « Us Elections — Sun, 14 Oct 2007 10:48:54 +0000

[…] read more | digg story […]

By: Matt

Matt — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 00:38:23 +0000

Read my lips: Ron Paul = no new taxes.

By: Kyle S

Kyle S — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 17:16:11 +0000

And you know that Ron isn’t saying these things just to get into office - he’s speaking from the heart. That’s how I am 100% confident that he will do everything in office, that he says he will do. Not like GWB who preached against nation building, or other presidents who pledged not to raise taxes before raising them.

By: David Thomas

David Thomas — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 20:05:46 +0000

finally someone I can vote for.

By: z a c k h i w i l l e r » Clarity

z a c k h i w i l l e r » Clarity — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 13:46:58 +0000

[…] Ron Paul for President. No flip-flopping. No what-will-you-do-for-me-today. No guesswork. […]

By: Edward Krieger

Edward Krieger — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 13:06:43 +0000

Elaborate more on the abortion issue. Mention H.R. 776,
the Sanctity of Life act of 2005. Also, the lack of support
for the bill by the evangelicals’ pet politicians, including
George Bush.

By: admin

admin — Wed, 11 Jul 2007 22:31:04 +0000

P. Nicholson & Casen: Imagine if the British had been on hand to police hostilities between the North and South during the Civil War era.

By: P. Nicholson

P. Nicholson — Wed, 11 Jul 2007 21:04:36 +0000

I disagree with Casen. Id much rather them fight each other and figure out what they want for themselves than our soldiers being shot at and shooting them.

Regardless, can anyone tell me how or when we will win?

By: Katy G

Katy G — Wed, 11 Jul 2007 16:09:33 +0000

Ron Paul is impressive. No other politician could do this because they would want to flip flip later. Only the impressive Ron Paul could put his views in black and white because he has been consistent with them for 20 years.

By: Dave

Dave — Wed, 11 Jul 2007 14:14:45 +0000

Ron Paul serves the interests of the largest special interest group in America…We The People. No other candidate can make that claim.
I also wanted to add that the UN under UNESCO has gained influence over, and in some cases supercedes US Sovereignty of 47 National Parks, including Yellowstone National Park.
What next?
RP ‘08…election day…can’t wait.

By: Casen G

Casen G — Wed, 11 Jul 2007 13:41:34 +0000

You should also add that Paul is pro-free trade (anti NAFTA or any other govt beuracracy to oversee it). This is essential to our inherent right to property.

I agree w/ Ron Paul on every issue except immediate withdrawal in Iraq. This war has been a serious blunder - no doubt. However, we have created reliance on the part of (our) loyalists over there and left a nation in shambles. We at least owe it to them to keep it some what secure so another Cambodia/ S. Vietnam massacre does not happen.