The Daily Campus

The government which governs best governs least

whe you are willing to give up you liberties for safety you deserve neither.

This is only unworkable because we have come to depend so heavily upon big brother goevernment from cradle to grave that to actually be independant and able to pursue our own happiness is such a foreign concept that one who espouses it is considered fringe, some smells when this is the case.

And what I am smelling is the elitist agenda of overseeing each moment of my life, making sure that I wash my hands because I am to stupid to remember on my own, and heaven forbid I spread disease, thereby causing a healthcare crisis. It is the COuncil of Foreign Relations, the United Nations, and the Biderberger types that want to control you, believing humans to be unworthy of freedom, a vote for Dr. Paul is the only vote to return this once great nation back into a beacon of truth to the world, not an arm of nation building bufoons.

the CFR rolls are littered with the Clintons, Obama, Guiliiani, Thompson, Gingrich, Edwards, Romney, McCains of the world, how is it they espouse such difference adn change when they all belong to the same groups?

Wake up, and be free!

>>Overall, Paul has no workable ideas. He wants to return to a gold standard, which would destroy the US economy. He wants to cut nearly every government department and build a giant wall (not a fence) on our border with Mexico. I honestly don't understand how people can think he would make a good president.

You have to ask yourself what the role of the President is. A President is not a king, and cannot rule by royal edict. Paul (more so than apparently any of the other candidates running) understands the division of powers set up in the Constitution. That means going to Congress and asking for what he wants, and delegating to the states and to the people any power not explicitly granted by the Constitution to the federal government. Other than the bully pulpit, he has the power to veto bills, direct the armed forces, and make appointments, and while we can argue about whether or not his appointments would suit everyone, as a fan of non-intervention and divided government, his lack of desire to start wars and his ability to wield a veto pen would suit me just fine.

In other words, the ship of state with a Democratic President will pull to the left and accelerate. I want a captain that will turn the wheel to the right a bit and step down on the brakes. I realize such a form of governance doesn't suit everyone, but I've seen what happens when one party holds the legislative and executive branch.

I am a student at Muhlenberg College in Allentown, PA. It is important that I point out several things this short article fails to mention about Dr. Congressman Ron Paul. He is a strict constitutionalist! If it doesn't pass consitutional muster, he will vote against the legislation. With regards to the Sudan genocide and American businesses profiting, if the constitution forbids activities by congress to enact limits on private enterprise, then Dr. Paul will vote against such legislation. We must remember that the act of passing legislation by congress does not make what they pass constitutional. It must pass constitutional muster (i.e. Juducial system and the Department of Justice)

Wow, I can't believe how ignorant both the author is and Mike is about Paul, and libertarian ideas, maybe you should both go read a couple books or something. First, he does want a gold standard (Greenspan, Bernanke and others also agree, before they were fed chairmen that is) but he doesnt plan on switching over in a day, that would surley bring economic crisis. What he wants is to legalize the Constitution, which says that silver and gold will be legal currency. This would bring competition in currency and eventual stabalize the currency and would be a gradual shift to the gold standard, which would mean no more infaltion tax.

I dont have time here, but abolishing things like the FDA would be a great thing. Private institutions are much better at doign things like this, we already have companies that do this sort of thing with other products (Consumer Reports and such). Try reading more abotu how this would work before you claim that it is a unworkable and stupid idea. People's problems all stem from the tyranny of the staus quo. You think that just because youve never seen something be done differnetly it cant be done at all.

I used to be like you guys, ignorant about the world and these ideas, but I went out of my way to find ideas that differed with mine and I began to realize how stupid I had been for so long and how worshiping the State is a terrible thing. You guys need to stop believing the State is all knowing, just and good, because in reality the State is ignorant, unjust and evil (it is evil because it is based on an immoral foundation: coercion).

Before you continue to talk abotu libertarian principles, or ROn Paul, do some more research and try to actually understand the ideas rather than not even caring to find out why people have come to think this way.

Brandon,

Your idea of Libertarian ideas is uninformed at least, and you offer no alternatives. I do agree however, Ron Paul is the extreme opposite of what we currently have in office. There is a reason "normal, intelligent people support Paul." Your misconceptions and abstract views of Paul would lead anyone to the same conclusion you have.

I am going to combat every point you have made, with how I feel Paul would stand on the issue;

With regards to "Never mind the slaughter that will occur with our exit." What about the slaughter that will continue to occur with our presence? Do you think somehow that we can prevent this civil war from occuring in Iraq? The least we can do is get our men out of harms way now. Not to mention, much of the violence occuring now is due to our presence over there. How would you feel if our land was being occupied by a foreign military? We are simply creating more resistance, more suicide attackers everyday we are there.

Paul's point on the FDA is this, in my opinion. The FDA does more harm then good by not allowing the many alternative medicines found in virtually every other country in the world, to protect us from some bad things. When in fact, those bad things still are approved and passed on to the american people. We should not have a federally funded departement that tells us what we can and cannot use to medicate ourselves. Rather, this should be handled privately, through consumer advocate programs, privately financed and supported by those people wanting their advice.

Regarding the several other Federal agencies that Paul wants to get rid of. All you need to do is take a look at the various federally funded programs to understand they have never worked and never will. The DEA has never won a war on drugs, nor do they make my children or myself any safer. In fact, they drive up the price on all drugs as they create black markets. The policy is flawed and leads to more violence and robberies and such. If the price of drugs was significantly reduced, who would need to steal or kill to support their habit?

Medicare and Medicade have failed, time and timme again. You support funding this program with your tax dollars, when this has been proven over and over? Why not let us do with our money what we want, allow us to find competition in the private market to buy this insurance, rather than the Federal government intervening - buying on our behalf withour competition. They have no incentive to be efficient! Look at Social Security for godsake, do we really have social security? I am certain the money I have had pulled out of my check for the last 15 years will not be there for my retirement, even the government acknowledges that.


Regarding pauls dissenting vote of The Darfur debacle in Sudan; You are wrong, Paul opposed inmposing sanctions on Sudan and our companies against selling their goods over there. If you take a look at that act, its intentions are good - but the results of said act are worthless. Paul believes, and it has been demonstrated in virtually every other area we have imposed sanctions - it does no good. "This resolution is no statement of humanitarian concern for what may be happening in a country thousands of miles from the United States. Rather, it could well lead to war against the African country of Sudan. The resolution "urges the Bush Administration to seriously consider multilateral or even unilateral intervention to prevent genocide should the United Nations Security Council fail to act." We must realize the implications of urging the President to commit the United States to intervene in an ongoing civil war in a foreign land thousands of miles away."

Your statments of Paul being rascist are false, and have been proven otherwise. He never made those statements, those are merely a smear attempt.

Paul's point on the various "Free trade agreements" are this: You are extending our rights as a country to other foreign bodies, and allowing them to make decisions for our Country. This should not happen, and these so called Free trade agreements are the exact opposite theri title, rather they impose various sanctions on people whom do not join, thus impeding free trade.


Overall, Paul has great ideas. The question you should be asking, can Paul get everyone else to understand his radical views and or will he be able to get passed the already giant bureaucratic federal goverment we have in place, to knock down these useless programs that are sucking the life out of AMerican people being able to manage and run their own lives.

I do not believe that you have read Dr. Paul's positions. You should take the time to dig into each candidate and judge them by their actions.

On taxes, you are incorrect in stating that he wants a 23% sales tax. Dr. Paul to the contrary wants to abolish the IRS and replace it with nothing. All of this depends on our attitude as to what government shoud do.

First, you must make the distinction between your state government and the federal government. Ron Paul is not running for governor in your state, he is running for president which is a federal postion. None of the services that your state provides are in jepoardy, nor are any of the laws of your state.

Ron Paul believes that the federal government really has little to say about what goes on in your home or in your local community.

As a free market guy he believes that consumer groups and independant organizations are more capable, more trustworthy, and more cost effective than the government is. Consumer reports and 'the good housekeeping seal of approval' are examples of how we the people decide what is good or bad for us as individuals.

The problem with our federal government now is that it has hijacked your tax money and it can refuse to redirect it back to your state or your cause. Federal government has assumed the responsibility for most everything these days and for the most part has screwed most of it up, made it more costly, and has sold out to special interests, who profit at your expense for their bloated nature.

Your civil rights are put into jeopardy by an executive branch that has gone totally bonkers in a shred-fest of the constitution. This is not a democracy, nor a dictatorship, but a constitutional republic (go look that up if you dont know what it means).

All Ron Paul wants to do is to preserve your right to be represented at the state level, where it should be. He wants to make it hard for an all powerful and super well funded elite class in washington to drive you and your children into poverty all in the name of paying for their mistakes, or bailing out something or other after their pals have taken the money and run.

Yes, Ron wants to eliminate the most wateful and ineffective and out of control agencies who spend every waking day trying to figure out new ways to start wars, invade your privacy, fleece you of every cent, and keep you stupid but happy.

Take the red pill, look this stuff up. Read his real positions and don't rely on someone else to tell you where he stands. You owe it to yourself and you owe it to your country to make an intelligent and informed choice for who will lead this country.

I for one vote for a much smaller and less powerful federal governemnt, and I vote for Ron Paul.

"but Paul wants to raise the sales tax to 23 percent at the least."
That is what Ron Paul is proposing ... other candidates have proposed this "fair tax". But with the smaller government of a Ron Paul admin, you wouldn't need to replace income tax with anything ... definitely not a 23% sales tax.

Also you have misstated the racist remarks. Yes they were in his newsletter, but they were written by a ghost writer. Paul has taken moral responsibility for the fact that they were printed in his newsletter, but they are not his opinion. Looking at his words and deeds throughout the rest of his career you can see how inconsistent those racist remarks were ... it is more logical to believe what Paul has said than not to.

If the government had followed the Constitution, most of the agencies Paul would like to cut would never have been created.

It is good that you took time to learn more about Paul after you first heard about him. But it doesn't look like your job is done ... you seem to be missing a lot of the background knowledge / context that make these ideas make sense.

Thanks.

As a former staff member of the Daily Campus, some years ago, I should note a few things. One is that Ron Paul has some libertarian sentiments and many sentiments that are most decidedly unlibertarian. He is not a libertarian on abortion, immigration, gay equality before the law, separation of church and state and other issues. He believes in state's rights not individual rights. He is a conservative with some libertarian sentiments. And even though I oppose Ron Paul, this column was poorly researched and badly written. Merely having an opinion does not make one a columnist.

It is very clear the aurthor of this article has never read the Consitution or any of Ron Pauls writings.

Paul does not want to raise the sales tax, that is what the advocates of the Fair Tax want to do. Ron Paul wants to get rid of the income tax and replace it with nothing. I think you should probably post a retraction of that misinformed statement.

If you want the war in Iraq to continue, war with Iran to follow, violations of our civil liberties to continue until America is a virtual dictatorship, and government spending and debt to continue to grow out of control, then vote for someone other than Ron Paul.

If you are worried that Ron Paul wants to cut government spending more than you think is prudent, rest assured that Congress would prevent him from making changes that are too radical.

As president, he could end the war, change to a non-interventionist foreign policy, and put a stop to civil liberties violations by the executive branch. The best he could do on spending is to veto anything he doesn't like.

A correction to your article: Ron Paul does not favor replacing the income tax with a 23% sales tax (the so-called Fair Tax, that's really a 30% sales tax with a gigantic federal bureaucracy to refund money to low income people). He favors ending the income tax and replacing it with nothing.

Taxes:
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/topic.php?id=0


"More interesting is Paul's absolute belief in the free market"
He's a believer in liberty. Individual decisions, people entering in agreements willingly, that type of thing. You know, the exact OPPOSITE of what we have now with the redistribute everything mentality.


"We wouldn't have a nutcase presidential candidate without him being a racist, not these days anyways. Paul luckily fits that bill."
Wow, I don't even know how to respond to that one. Try reading, even a little weee bit, and you'll see that this is the ONLY piece of dirt that is being thrown at Dr. Paul. After reading his explanation, and the fact that he's got a very long and CONSISTENT history to prove otherwise, I'd say you're definitely grasping at straws.


"It's no wonder White Supremacist Website and forum Stormfront.org has come out in support of Paul, as has former Ku Klux Klan member and politician David Duke."
They are Americans too, whether you like it or not, and your rights and liberties are no more important than theirs. They support Dr. Paul, I suppose, because he recognizes personal liberty, ownership of ones self.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=pK-BMmPvjBw


"Here's a list of things Paul wants to end because they have had failures in the past, or he sees them as useless: CIA, FBI, Department of Homeland Security, FDA, IRS, Medicare, FBI, DEA, UN, NATO, NAFTA and CAFTA."
OK, so why does Dr. Paul want to get rid of these agencies? Well, he's got plenty of reasons. Please take a few minutes to read the following and then tell me whether or not you understand his reasons:
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=690


"Overall, Paul has no workable ideas. He wants to return to a gold standard, which would destroy the US economy. "
As if the US economy isn't already being destroyed? How much of our country is owned by foreigners? Don't know? Well, do some digging and you'll quickly find out that a SINGLE country can bring us to our knees TODAY (literally in ONE DAY) if they wanted to, simply by "cashing in". At least with a gold standard you'd have something of value - today all you'd have is paper with some nice pictures of famous American leaders on it.

Do they teach research or ethics in anthropology? Because you obviously haven't researched Dr. Paul's opinions, or you have but still are attributing falsehoods to him.

1 - Dr. Paul doesn't support a 23% national sales tax.
2 - Dr. Paul didn't make the racial comments you attribute to him (Lew Rockwell did).

It's unfortunate that this writer has misinterpreted the reasons why Dr. Paul votes the way he does. While he may indeed prefer the self-regulation of a free market system to excessive intervention by government, the reason he votes 'No' to so much legislation is because it doesn't pass his first litmus test: Is Congress authorized by the Constitution of the United States of America to pass this legislation (regardless of the merits of that legislation)?
Personally, I welcome a politician who seeks to stay within the checks and balances of government envisioned by our forefathers, rather than try to increase the power of their political office.

Funny...I think non-libertarian ideas are unreasonable.

I like the whole idea of respecting the rights of others, and not controlling what they say or wear, or how they spend their own money.

You would sure hate that Thomas Jefferson guy. Maybe you'd prefer someone like Clinton, who voted for the Iraq war and the Flag Desecration Amendment (because you need government to tell you which items of your personal property you may or may not burn).

Your comment about the "slaughter" that would occur is simply uneducated. Iraq's prime minister has said the U.S. can "leave any time they want". Polls consistently indicate they don't want us occupying their land. Hello? Do you read before you criticize this man's policies?

And yes, get rid of the FDA. Let the consumer make his own decisions, as an adult, whether to consume a company's product, or look for the seal of safety from a trusted independent testing agency. Thousands die every year because the FDA is so slow to approve new life-saving drugs. Let adults decide for themselves what acceptable risks-vs.-benefits to stake their lives on - not politicians!

We can replace Medicare/Medicaid with private savings. We can get a much better return on investment by privately investing. If you want to help those too poor to invest, you have the right, in a free society, to be charitable to them. You don't have the right to steal from others to give to your favorite charities.

Ron Paul's sensible practical policies mean that people can push their own agendas, but not push them down other people's throats. Ron Paul is the re-incarnation of a true Founding Father. He's a defender and protector of the liberty this country was built on.

Your comment about Sudan is also horrendously misleading and mis-stated. Congressman Paul is adamantly against corporate welfare. If he had it his way no tax money would be given to any corporations, save for those we were actually buying products/services from.

I suggest you author a follow-up piece, in which you actually spend a little time doing research and thinking before speaking.

Bottom line: The author of this piece didn't do his homework, his facts are wrong, and he doesn't have a clue what he is writing about.

How about the character, honesty and integrity of the candidate (and the degree to which their public record demonstates it)? Apparently its all about political idealogy. Whether it's Hillary or Rudy or Obama or Mitt, my guess is we'll get the following: more debt, more spying, more survaillance, more good jobs going overseas, more G.I.'s dying overseas, and of course bigger and bigger government running our lives. I call that tyranny.

Oh by the way, you won't see Dr. Paul having to return $850,000 in illegal campaign controbutions like Hillary. But that's the mainstream message in today's world. Vote for the richest and most entrenched liar in the field. Or maybe some actor would be good. How profound. Oh well, we can always wait another 4 years to vote for an honest public servant. But if you're the rare voter who has grown up a little, vote for a true patriot who will defend and protect the Constitution of the United States, Rep. Ron Paul. Thanks.

Like I noticed a few years ago in college, most students fail to do adequate research before stating something as fact. With everything available on the internet today, you should be ashamed for writing such an ill-informed article.

Or maybe you should just be intellectually honest and admit that you support the government's right to interfere in every aspect of our daily lives. Perhaps you're one of those students who plans to move back in with Mom and Dad right after graduation?

The "problems" you have with Dr. Paul have all been discussed long before your article and have been reviewed and approved by serious scholars and worthy institutions from every corner of the spectrum. The more the government gets involved, the more corrupt, complicated, and expensive things get. Ron Paul is the only one who wants to follow the constitution.

I read your article, and I find it ironic that you ended it with he offers no "constructive" thoughts, since your article only bashes Ron Paul.

Anyway, it's because of his philosophy of government. Milton Friedman, a nobel prize winning economist, once asked a queston, posed to those advocating for government. Name one government program that actually achived its goals. We've fallen behind other countries after the creation of the Dept. of Education. Minimum wage laws cause unemployment for unskilled workers, because if you have to pay more, you are only going to hire more skilled workers. Medicare and medicaid have made health care much worse than anyone could have imagined. The list goes on and on.

Granted we do need a government for a military (for defense only) and to enforce contracts and laws. But Ron Paul is saying the government shouldn't be pro-active in trying to save us from ourselves. Any time it tries to "help" people, it ends up hurting them. So in that sense, yeah, he has a lot of destructive ideas, because they would destroy all the bad government programs out there.

I guess the basic question is this. Do you like the way the country is headed now? It's a serious question, no sarcasm intended. If you do, I can assure you any of the other candidates for President will continue it, just in different styles. More government spending, more government programs, more war. And you can vote for any of them, it doesn't matter if it's Hillary or Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney or Barack Obama or Fred Thompson. It really doesn't.

Very disappointing article. A testament to how well the establishment has brainwashed our young people.

How much of your private property and your liberty must be appropriated by the federal government before you begin to question the status quo? If you would take some time to learn just a little about the constitution, maybe you would choose some other adjective beside "radical" to describe Dr. Paul's ideas.

How much more contrived and produced does our political process have to become before you realize it is more spectacle than substance; a scripted confrontation between accomplices; a soap opera designed to keep us distracted and amused while those in power pursue their own interests?

How unresponsive does government have to become before you figure out that you are less represented than you are controlled and cultivated? Iraq, FEMA, The War on Drugs, bankrupt Social Security, exploding prison populations, spiraling taxation, spreading bureaucracy, basement approval ratings, suspended civil liberties ... hello? And if you find yourself reaching for the Dempublican answer of more spending, more federal control, and even larger government, just take a moment and remember Albert Einstein's definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

"Radical", indeed! You've been punked by the establishment, dude! We all have.

"People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people" -V

Ron Paul '08

Wow, there are such an incredible number of misrepresentation and information that are flat out wrong concerning Dr. Paul's and Libertarian principles in this article, I don't know where to start. Fortunately, there are plenty of well informed comments disputing the many falsehoods made by the author, so I instead focus on Libertarian ideas.

I have been a Libertarian (http://www.lp.org) since 1980 when I viewed a commercial on TV for Ed Clark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Clark), the Libertarian nominee for President. I had always considered myself Republican to this point, though I had strong disagreements with their social agenda; specifically, their tendency towards censorship and promotion of draconian laws for marijuana use and possession. The Democrats weren't (and aren't) a whole lot better in that regards, so the idea of less government rather than more, and less of a tendency (albeit miniscule) to raise taxes were the reasons for those leanings. This (the Ed Clark commercial) prompted me to do more research (before the internet, this was no small chore), and I have considered myself Libertarian and have voted a straight Libertarian in 1980 and every election (with only a couple of exceptions) since.

The idea behind Libertarianism is the individual can better decide what is best for him/herself than a nanny government; that people should be responsible for their own actions, and if those actions harm others, they should be held accountable. It's called personal responsibility (politician hate the idea). Face it, the federal government screws up everything it touches, and instead of admitting the mistake in having touched it in the first place (once the outcry can no longer be ignored by the politicians), they always try and fix it with more government interference, and things only end up getting worse.

I personally believe that most people have a Libertarian streak, but just don't know it. Even on a good election year (if there is such a thing), only 55% of the eligible voters show up at the polls to cast their vote, and probably half of that only do so to prevent the greater of two evils from being elected. If the Libertarian Party were not ignored and ridiculed by MSM and the ignorant (such as the author of this article), and allowed to debate the dishonest lot we are told are our only choices by the media, the US and the entire world would be in much better shape than things are today.

Haha you're a seventh-semester ANTHROPOLOGY (undergraduate) student commenting about the economic consequences of Paul's various policy plans? Do you even know the slightest thing about the gold standard, when we abdicated it, or for what reason? Surely your criticism of this matter, along with others, isn't based entirely off your own ignorance, is it?

You will learn more about Ron Paul as the media starts to recognize him as a viable candidate and gives him more air-time. His views are supported in detail in his writings - so go ahead and read them - they are all online and there for everyone to see. Google Ron Paul. Our country needs him, badly.

Have fun with the RFID chip man

If we abolish the CIA and FBI (those pesky "nanny government" agencies), who would protect us from serial killers, terrorists and the like? I guess Ron Paul just doesn't care about the citizenry, or national security for that matter.

If you think that our current course is not going to bring us to collapse or world war 3 than you can't be convinced.

The system is corrupt and were going broke... Despite any hckups of Rons Policys, We need to reel it in and fix this mess before one day you wake up to realize that shopping at Wall Mart supports Communism........Now China is ghosting our fleets shooting satelites out of the sky and the Status Quo is to blame.......

Ron Paul can save us all.........

Brandon needs to do a little more reasearch before publishing. Research is a good thing. Ron Paul's record speaks for itself and the dirty politics mainstream politicians (and their minions) are trying to employ have been explained away. The typical Dems and Reps have more skeletons in their closets than undertakers. Look at the dirt they dug up for Clinton and Bush.

Ron Paul 2008

WOW...absolutly irresponsible reporting...I hope your a student and still learning. Cherry picking facts and not painting the whole picture or doing research WHY Ron Paul's policies would work instead of knee-jerk reactions to eliminating well-intentioned but miserably failing federal programs is NOT journalism...it's misinformed opinion (at best). Furthermore, where did you get that 23% figure...the fair tax maybe? If so...Dr. Paul is NOT an advocate of the fair tax...(if your a journalist that has done his research you should know this), he has repeatedly said he wants to abolish the income tax the IRS, and replace it with NOTHING...he not only wants to cut taxes, but cut the revenue into the federal goverment so they will SPEND LESS, and be more responislbe with the money that they DO get. Please (I am challenging your journalistic integrity) do more research and listen to Ron Paul's reasoning behind his arguments, then get back to us!

Ron Paul may receive some support from democrats, but I think the real source is people who don't usually vote. I was never interested in politics until I saw Ron Paul speaking.

A 22 year CIA veteran who was an adviser to the unit responsible for capturing Osama bin Laden, makes statements that corroborates Ron Paul's believe that our foreign policy is the problem.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aqm4XVylLLc&NR=1

Honestly you don't know how federal organizations work. Anyways, you react like if Paul was President, he'd just start changing everything in a fit of power... No, he believes in limited executive powers.. he would certainly support his views and try to get others to support him, but hes relying on the congress. Congress makes law, not the president.

"...but Paul wants to raise the sales tax to 23 percent at the least."
Ron Paul has firmly stated that he would not replace the income tax with any other tax.

Then yur just freaking out in the last few paragraphs.. You basically skim over issues that are highly debatable while trying to slander an honest man. All I can say is I suggest you do research on these topics you skimmed over, because there is evidence to support Ron Paul.

Despite all these little points, i just support Ron Paul because i think he represents significant change (change from bush). Also, after hearing him speak, i could sense he was an honest man. Plus he is the oldest.

The biggest problem that I am noticing is that many of the anti-pauls simply don't understand him or they want to frame his ideas as idiotic because they are supporters of big government. This ignorance is the US's biggest obstacle. It is clear that the News is way too BIASED in this country. Wake up America!!

Inaccurate article and misinformed article to say the least. Simply put, Paul wants the fed to stay within the enumerated powers of Article I Section VIII (i.e., the powers delegated to Congress). If the people of the states want the fed to assume additional powers, amend the Constitution pursuant to Article V. States can be more socialistic so long as they don't abridge any of the restrictions listed in Article I Section X. It's pretty simple.

The author basically says that Paul supports corporate welfare... i.e., subsidies to corporations. This is the total opposite of the position Paul takes.

I'm tired and don't have time to really rip this article to shreds...

Mr. Author--- NEXT TIME DO YOUR HOMEWORK/RESEARCH BEFORE YOU POST SOMETHING LIKE THIS ON THE INTERNET. THIS ARTICLE REALLY UNDERMINES YOUR CREDIBILITY.

Wow. I really doubt that all these people go to UConn. "Pauliac" internet geeks who troll the internet for articles where people say the "wrong" thing about Dr. Ron Paul just discredit all those who are supporting him in a more appropriate way.
When a college newspaper publishes something, you don't get to start rambling on Bilderbergers and "MSM-conspiracy" just because the article was on internet.

It is the federal reserve system that has destroyed this economy by devaluing our dollar. Based on price indices from the last 100 years, the prices of goods have not risen in terms of purchasing parity of gold or silver. One oz of silver bought 4 gallons of gas in the 1950's and it still does today. The dollar has been greatly diminished by printing more and more money to keep interest rates low and credit high. This causes inflation. Ad the subrprime problems we've been having and we're seeing inflation at about 10%. The fed says 3% but that's becuase they don't measure all of the indicators. That means that if you're seeing returns on your savings account of 2%, your actually flushing 8% of your money down the toilet.

The above column is not only inaccurate, but it shows a total lack of understanding of ANY of the topics mentioned throughout it. By fueling the idea that Ron Paul is a racist (which has been debunked), the author is illustrating to his readers that he doesn't deserve to have a column.

If we make government smaller, then there weill be a power vacuum that the corporate world would fill. And no matter how bad our government is, it is still more trustworthy than corporations because the government is at least supposed to care about the citizenry and corporations just care about profit.
I trust the government more than the private sector when it comes to the environment. Don't you?

There is so much wrong with this article that I will refrain from picking it apart piece by piece. It will suffice to say that Ron Paul has several books published that convey his "constructive" thoughts. Go to the Cato Institute's website and you will find more info. This author needs an introduction to political theory.

You would rather have the oil industry, among others, control emissions rather than the EPA? Perhaps you should wash yourself free of the propaganda and think for yourself, Tammy. I'm having a bit of trouble distinguishing libertarians from anarchists.

Dmitry said:
"And no matter how bad our government is, it is still more trustworthy than corporations because the government is at least supposed to care about the citizenry and corporations just care about profit."

By the time you add up ALL of the taxes you pay to our government it's in the neighborhood of 40% (soon to increase when the bigger government, 20-80 society Democrats take control of the Presidency, Congress and the Courts)! You work all day Monday and Tuesday JUST FOR THE GOVERNMENT! You tell me, does FORCIBLY taking 40% of everyones hard earned property just so it can be redistributed to those in power (who make the decisions of where the money goes) make sense? No! The government is supposed to allow us to remain free in our liberty, not impose restriction after restriction on us as individuals. Why is everyone so willing to be controlled for the sake of others? If you choose to be an altruist, fine. But you can't force everyone to do so. Please read the Constitution!



Dmitry said:
"You would rather have the oil industry, among others, control emissions rather than the EPA? "

Well, I'd say that in today's world of politics they are one in the same. Industry lobbyists control huge parts of the government, the EPA included. Industry simply adds cleanup costs as an expense item and increases their pricing, or they simply move their operations overseas. Those companies that can't afford to clean up after themselves go out of business are are most likely supplanted by overseas companies that do NOT follow our guidelines. The net effect is that we lose more of our manufacturing base while overseas companies get all of the business.

In theory, self regulation in a competitive environment would be ~way~ better than what we have now. In reality, though, the general public can't be bothered to know and understand the issues and thus wouldn't force the hands of industry. Really, it's the ignorance of the populace that requires a parental government to oversee these things.

I'd come down on the side of education - the more you know the better decisions you can make. Take the EPA and shrink it down to next to nothing. Publish emission levels that would be desirable and then legislate that ALL companies publish their emission levels. Now you can let the companies fight it out to see who can achieve the best results. This would have the added benefit of forcing overseas companies to lower their own emission levels if they want to be competitive here in the US. Remember that the EPA has ZERO influence in other nations, such as China, who are HUGE polluters.

Bigger government is never the answer. Use the government to coordinate, fine, but never to control.


Dmitry said:
"Perhaps you should wash yourself free of the propaganda and think for yourself"

Yes, Dmitry, that is excellent advise! I'd ask you to do the same!

your article is inaccurate and unprofessional. eliminate the irs and cut spending .No sales tax increase. The article you quote was written by someone else. etc. Sounds like you are a partisan. Dont be scared. Freedom doesnt hurt.

Premises:
- The US installed government is corrupt and no credibility among Iraqis
- history in the Muslim world, in particular Afghanistan and Vietnam, shows that these unpopular governments are always removed after US leaves
- current successes in small pockets in Iraq is due to Iraqi's fed up with violence and lawlessness and acted to take their freedom back--despite the incompetence of Iraq Central gov't.
- US foreign policy never supports democratic/popular government on colonized states: e.g., Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran, Kuwait, - Soviet Union collapsed because it went bankrupt.
- America has way too much paper/monopoly money floating out there and does not have the "tangible wealth" to support it. America is effectively bankrupt...NOW
- We cannot support imperialistic moves by the current US foreign policy for long--and pay for it with US "imaginary" wealth and with American and other people's blood
- The Muslim world has viable universally recognized religious and smart leaders around the world. We've witness how effective their edicts and opinions were/are.
- ambiguity in definition of "American Interests". Is it just some idiot's whim or is it something well-defined?

Conclusions:
- current Iraqi administration will be replaced with Iraqi's own chosen leaders
- The Muslim leaders in Iraq and elsewhere will call for a sectarian multilateral discussion to come up with an Islamic/Muslim solution to their problems
- Like Vietnam, US cannot and must NOT do anything more to prop this corrupt puppets.
- bring the troop home.- reduce tension in Mideast => reduce terrorism
- more troops at home => guard against border crossing terrorist- Less $ spent on US militarism => more money for Katrina, infrastructure, education, retirement, health care, alternative energy, social security, etc
- less centralized gov't => less corruption opportunity from lobbyist
- decentralized gov't => states/people can be creative again
- Washington politics become less lucrative => people who go there are smarter and go there to serve and not to loot the people
- smarter and more citizen-centric statesmen => fairer and more citizen-sensitive policies locally, nationally and internationally.
- no oil lobbying => new alternative energy options blooms => reduce green house gases => stem global warming
- reduction in terrorism => reduction in US "Big Brother" programs => gain liberty and freedom back to people
- innovative people free to benefit from fruit of their labor => American Prosperity => Proud (but not imperialistic) America
- reduce American Militarism => stability for the world => Innovation and creativity flourishes all over the globe (Now this would be a good definition of Globalization--without the CFR, IMF and World Bank negative connotation)
- prosperity across the globe => trade between sovereign nations => happy planet Earth inhabitants.

You don't know the long term issues facing America so you support one of the status quo candidates. America is facing total economic collapse due to status-quo candidates and the naive pseudo-intellectuals who blindly parrot their fallacies.

Right now, social security obligations, at $60 trillion, are far out pacing what the American government is going to be able to afford, so millions of Americans are going to be left with nothing when they retire. There is a growing debt that requires massive cuts to both military presence abroad and domestic spending. There is a gradual decline in the wealth of the middle class.

Since Nixon took the US off the gold standard in 1971, and ushered in an age of inflationary monetary policy, median wages in America have remained stagnant. For some demographics, like those between 25-34, median wages are lower now than they were 35 years ago in 1972. Household wealth for median wage earners is lower now than it was 27 years ago, back in 1980. That real wages are lower now than they were in a time before multi-GHz processors and the internet is outrageous. Since 1971, the gap between rich and poor has ballooned, and the US government has borrowed itself to the brink of bankruptcy through the mechanism of debt monetization.

The status quo candidates don't want to tackle these issues let alone mention them. They want to keep borrowing from the next generation so that they can promise things for the people (e.g. healthcare for everyone) and get elected today. This has been the modus operandis for politicians and this is why America is in such big trouble now.

The Republic is facing total collapse because of the irresponsibility of the mainstream candidates:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGpY2hw7ao8

Watch the video and stop being ignorant.