Here is a link to a page from the Annals of Congress, showing part of the original debate in the House in 1789 over the wording of what is now the 1st amendment: http://memory.loc.gov/ll/llac/001/0300/03820759.tif

Does it seem to you as if Ron Paul’s position on unenumerated rights would be remotely comprehensible to those people? Many liberal legal scholars would not give a damn what people two centuries ago thought about unenumerated rights, and they are generally sane people arguing in good faith, but that’s not the sort of language I am hearing from Paul (libertarians are often, but are certainly not somehow mystically required to be, some sort of originalists).

He just doesn’t smell like a libertarian to me, or really to anyone I have personally talked to about him, for that matter.

My apologies to any lawyers in the audience who are twitching at all the gaps in my story here — sorry — I was trying to be clear and terse! (yeah right, on that last one, I know)

Marqui and Reprisal means = GOING AFTER BIN LADIN. If the mafia attacks you you don’t invade Italy.

First they laugh at you.
then they attack you.
then you win.,
Ghandi.
we are in attack mode now..

How about “Ron Paul the Isolationist”? Paul is on record as saying we should not be the “world’s policeman”. He echoes George Washington’s warning against “entangling alliances” and advocates “free trade with all”. He opposes the current interventionist foreign policy and he doesn’t think we should tax Americans and send their money overseas. He thinks we should get out of the U.N. Those of you who think this is a bad idea should consider that half of the reason for invading Iraq was to enforce U.N. resolutions. (The other half was to search for WMD.)

How about a real live-wire issue: Abortion. Ron Paul is an OB/GYN. He’s delivered over 4000 babies. His personal opposition to abortion crystalized when he witnessed a live newborn tossed in a bucket to die. Paul opposes the “Roe v. Wade” decision - but not on the grounds that he personally opposes abortion. Abortion is NOT a federal issue. It’s not mentioned in the Constitution and it is properly handled at the state level. This might result in some states banning abortion, while others permit it. Paul is aware of this.

There has been mention of Paul being “tin foil hat” crazy for supporting a return to the gold standard. Paul, as an avid student and author in the field of economics probably has a better grip on this issue than ANY candidate. One example I’ve seen of the folly of fiat money is that a dollar used to buy 4 gallons of gas. The silver dollars in circulation at that time would still buy 4 gallons of gas at today’s rates - but the fiat paper money we call the “American Dollar” will only buy about 1/3 of a gallon. Think about that next time you fill up. Had we stayed on the silver/gold standard, you’d be paying 12 times less for gas. Ironically, the advantages of the fiat dollar accrue to groups you probably oppose - like the military industrial complex. A precious metal standard eliminates the ability of the power elite to erode your income.

Let’s see… oh! Socialized medicine. Paul points out that in every other field where technology makes great strides, costs go down. Your computer costs a tiny fraction of what comparable machines cost even 10 years ago. Cell phones are so cheap that they’re used as promotional items. Compare them to the huge bricks that were the earlier versions and which cost many times as much - even neglecting inflation. But what about medicine? The costs go up, and up, and up. Paul says the government is part of this problem. How can that be? Well, for starters, look at the prescription drug “benefit”. Part of the legislation prohibits the government from buying drugs from cheaper sources. That is, the price of the drugs is artificially inflated by the legislation itself! So who does this help? The patient who needs the drugs but isn’t yet covered? Or the Drug Companies, who now have a guaranteed profit for their drugs?

I know these issues are only the tip of the iceberg, but if your mind is open, do your own research. Impartial investigation will show that Ron Paul is a principled man dedicated to peace and freedom for Americans.

That’s a platform I can accept.

He does, and he also thinks about the civil liberties of the unborn human as well :^D

Regardless, he’s against federal legislation concerning abortion, which means he’d veto any anti-abortion bills from Congress. That means you can take your blinders off and pull your earplugs out and take another look at the guy.

Which reminds me - Why do so many people say, “Nope, I ain’t gonna listen no more!” when they find a single issue they don’t like?

Until then, I hold myself in abeyance.

It’s not like you can’t feign to be bringing obscure knowledge/The Good News and bring a lot of handwaving along as well, though. And a lot of that there was, yes indeed.