Obama has failed the US

[The Silver Thong]

Yes it is. Cutting all alliances, leaving all internation groups, and ending every single free trade agreement (not just NAFTA) would leave America alone. Countries would be wary about dealing with the US and aside from a trade agreement here and there they'd go do business with someone else. End of the day America ends up isolated.

How do you even think it would be possible for one man to do that. How can you see RP pulling out of the UN. The US is isolated as we speak. RP is talking about rebuilding his nation not others and any thinking person knows that the US can not do that alone.

Canada is going to play a big role in rebuilding the US as the ME will now need another customer. Terrorists will be glad to see the US leave and so be it. Let them live the way they want. Maybe with out the US dollar funding regimes we see as dispicable they will clean up there act and be a bit more business savey. Hense human right violations the US ignores because of there oil.

Canada has a chance to now dictate some terms just not the same as the ME has dictated to the US. Trade with nations that doesn`t cost a nation to go into banckrupcy is the US`s only choice.

Edited December 7, 2011 by The Silver Thong

[The Silver Thong]

Obama should have never been voted in. Ron Paul is an isolationist and has many faults as well. Read more about him. He is not the one either that we need now. I don't see any one running or whom says they are going into the race worth a hoot.

He is the only one that can reset the sails as the US is far of course as to where it should. RP is the compass and who ever after RP needs to take heed of that coure. The US is in the drain and unless someone with a set of balls stands up it`s fubard. No longer can people who don`t give a crap about there nation but there own personal bank accounts rule the nation it will fail.

[Robbie333]

He is the only one that can reset the sails as the US is far of course as to where it should. RP is the compass and who ever after RP needs to take heed of that coure. The US is in the drain and unless someone with a set of balls stands up it`s fubard. No longer can people who don`t give a crap about there nation but there own personal bank accounts rule the nation it will fail.

I see your point to an extent. Isolationism is just not the right choice. This is my main beef with RP. I hate to say it but we need to be arm and arm with other nations. You cannot in this day and age stand alone in the world. Too many chances to take. Logistics for tactical reasons, free trade, technologies, etc, etc are a group effort to the benifit of all involved. JMO

[Corp]

How do you even think it would be possible for one man to do that. How can you see RP pulling out of the UN. The US is isolated as we speak. RP is talking about rebuilding his nation not others and any thinking person knows that the US can not do that alone.

Canada is going to play a big role in rebuilding the US as the ME will now need another customer. Terrorists will be glad to see the US leave and so be it. Let them live the way they want. Maybe with out the US dollar funding regimes we see as dispicable they will clean up there act and be a bit more business savey. Hense human right violations the US ignores because of there oil.

Canada has a chance to now dictate some terms just not the same as the ME has dictated to the US. Trade with nations that doesn`t cost a nation to go into banckrupcy is the US`s only choice.

Paul has said that the US should pull out of the UN. So if he's as honest as his supporters claim then if elected he would try to do so. And the US is not isolated right now. They're part of the UN and NATO and several other international organizations. This isn't isolated at all.

Not sure how much of a role we would play in rebuilding the US given that Paul wants to kill deals such as NAFTA, NORAD, and ends the alliance with Canada. And I'm hoping you're not suggesting that the US is the only reason why there are bad governments and abuses in the Middle East.

I don't see Canadian influence growing if Paul becomes president. In fact I can see it decreasing as Paul kills various treaties we have with the US. Now if he would form new treaties following this, well that's another question.

[sam12six]

I don't get how so many people equate no treaties to isolationism.

Ron Paul says (pretty much every time the topic is brought up) he'd like the US to have treaties with none and trade with all.

Why is it that when someone says our country should have no "official" friends and enemies, that instead it should be free to decide on a case-by-case how to respond to the actions of other countries, a bunch of people cry "ISOLATIONIST!!"?

As for things like NAFTA, what does it do? Does it not offer companies the ability to import products without additional tax burden while exporting American jobs and US tax revenue? What kind of American thinks that's a great deal (I know, I know... a Mexican American)?

[+DieChecker]

I was an Obama fan but that has faded fast and a second term will spell disaster. There is but one canidate and I do not care about his party but his policy. Is this the only man that can possibly save the Empire.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V36MT5lAMrc&feature=related

Vote for this man if you want a life line.

It was a good video, but went a little too fast, especially in the small size format. A little too much Art-House for me also. And I did not see his picture or name anywhere. But then I watched like 20 seconds and then skipped to the end.

Dr. Paul is by far the clear choice in 2012. Obama will win another term if any but Dr. Paul runs against him. The republicans-consevatives have no other choice imo. Some here know me as a liberal but I assure you I do not vote party nor would I if I were able to vote in the US.

I'll tell you what. If the choice is between Ron Paul and Barack Obama, I'm voting for Paul 10 times out of 10. And I think Obama could turn into a centrist Republican with a little tweeking.

So you don`t get the fact that private industry controls the political system. Private industry can no longer control government. Governements negotiates with private industy allowing private industry to control governments. Hence the vote becaomes usless. The government needs to establish laws and inforce them by the people. Not have private companies dictate law to goverment that people think they elected.

But isn't downsizing government simply going to turn over those tasks to private industry? Thus those tasks will still be controlled by corporate interests. Do you suspect that somehow Ron Paul is going to eliminate corporate influence in Washington DC? To do that he would have to eliminate the trait of Greed from the human animal.

He would save our government, but the people would still be in the same situation. At least IMHO.

[+DieChecker]

Look at his congressional voting record. He's put his money where his mouth is time and time again.

He definately has tried to do what he said he would. This is directly related to the Isolationist stance he has.

So pulling out of NATO, the UN, NAFTA, and a bunch of other international organizations isn't isolationist? It sure sounds like Paul wants to flip off the world.

I agree. You can't just tell your allies and friend countries to kiss off and fend for themselves and then expect them to say, "I completely understand and hold no hard feelings". Just look at what is going on in Europe... hard feelings all the way round, and they are trying to support their alliances. Imagine if Germany up and jumped out of the EU. There would be a lot of hard feelings there.

A main arguement that Germany can no longer leave the EU is that its trade would disappear and the only reason it is doing so well is massive exporting.

A reliance that costs the US public in the trillions; only for the benefit of the military-industrial complex. Not for the benefit of the US public, or even the people whos wars they're fighting.

I'm pretty sure that hundreds of thousands, if not Millions of people directly are paid by government military appropriations, and the spending of military personnel. Many entire cities are economically based off the military. Others are supported almost entirely by military contractor corporations.

The members of NATO aren't going to be happy when a founding member and key partner decides to cut all ties.

Maybe they could rename it NETO (Northern European Treaty Organization)

I seriously doubt he could do everything he claims in their entirety. Especially not in 4 years. The end result would be a step or two back from US' seemingly Imperialistic policies; back to happy medium.

This is true. Whatever he does is going to be limited by Congress. So regardless of him being a Kook, if he was elected damage would be minimal, and gains might be possible.

Ron Paul says (pretty much every time the topic is brought up) he'd like the US to have treaties with none and trade with all.

Because like 99% of trade deals are wrapped up around Treatys that the US has with individual nations. Trade deals are done as much through the State Department as though CEOs and Boardrooms. It is the prestige of the US government that allows US trade to be done on such favorable terms. At least in part.

Edited December 7, 2011 by DieChecker

[Mr_Snstr]

I don't get how so many people equate no treaties to isolationism.

Ron Paul says (pretty much every time the topic is brought up) he'd like the US to have treaties with none and trade with all.

Why is it that when someone says our country should have no "official" friends and enemies, that instead it should be free to decide on a case-by-case how to respond to the actions of other countries, a bunch of people cry "ISOLATIONIST!!"?

As for things like NAFTA, what does it do? Does it not offer companies the ability to import products without additional tax burden while exporting American jobs and US tax revenue? What kind of American thinks that's a great deal (I know, I know... a Mexican American)?

"Isolationist" is a non existant term in this mordern age anyways. A modern country arguably cannot be "isolated"; even if it tried its derndest. That term came about when sailboats and horses were the way to get around; and to get messages to people that weren't right in front of you. We do things a little differently and quicker these days.

[sam12six]

Because like 99% of trade deals are wrapped up around Treatys that the US has with individual nations. Trade deals are done as much through the State Department as though CEOs and Boardrooms. It is the prestige of the US government that allows US trade to be done on such favorable terms. At least in part.

I agree with you both on how the deals have been structured and that they have been possible because of the prestige of the US (which on a nation-to-nation level means military and economic strength). Now, I'd argue that a lot of these deals erode the very prestige that makes them possible.

Anyway, trade agreements aren't really my issue. It's that people throw out 'isolationist' talking about Paul like he wants to (or would be able to as President) turn the US into Marco Polo era China. That, or they talk about how chaotic things will be when he does away with the IRS or any other change that would be politically impossible for a president to implement.

In other words, most people who claim to dislike Ron Paul's politics phrase it something like this:

I like his notions of ending our illegal and pointless wars and reversing some of the unconstitutional Bush era executive decisions (things he could do if he were president), but can't stomach that he would eliminate the Department of Education or overturn Rowe vs Wade (things no president would be able to do on his own).

To me, if a candidate wants to and could do things you like, even if he has some ideas you don't like but he couldn't do anything with, there's no negative. That being the case, I've never heard anyone (who wasn't trolling) say they dislike Paul's foreign policy stances, just that they disagree with his impossible-to-implement domestic ideas.

I believe the only ones who should really be worried about Paul getting elected are big business and the politicians they own.

[+DieChecker]

Anyway, trade agreements aren't really my issue. It's that people throw out 'isolationist' talking about Paul like he wants to (or would be able to as President) turn the US into Marco Polo era China. That, or they talk about how chaotic things will be when he does away with the IRS or any other change that would be politically impossible for a president to implement.

In other words, most people who claim to dislike Ron Paul's politics phrase it something like this:

I like his notions of ending our illegal and pointless wars and reversing some of the unconstitutional Bush era executive decisions (things he could do if he were president), but can't stomach that he would eliminate the Department of Education or overturn Rowe vs Wade (things no president would be able to do on his own).

I think I have to agree that his ability to do crazy things would be limited. But, my point being, if we know he thinks crazy things are fine, why is he even in the running?

Given what we think is going to happen in Congress. (Either more of nothing getting done, or possibly a Republican Congress.) Then Romney, Gingrich or Paul all might get the same exact things done. Do we really think that the massive cuts RP wants are going to get through congress looking any different then the milder cuts proposed by Romney? If the most likely outcome of the next Administration will be exactly the same, then why vote for the "Crazy guy"?

This I think is why RPs random poll numbers are always low. I think he is in 4th now.

The one thing RP has going for him is that he is a man of his word. Most of the others are true politicians and you know what they say about a politican moving his mouth...

[preacherman76]

Yes it is. Cutting all alliances, leaving all internation groups, and ending every single free trade agreement (not just NAFTA) would leave America alone. Countries would be wary about dealing with the US and aside from a trade agreement here and there they'd go do business with someone else. End of the day America ends up isolated.

The US consumes over 25% of the worlds resorces. Believe me, we would find people to do buisness with. Might even convince someone to buy something from us for a change.

Without the UN there would have been no peacekeeping missions or large scale aid relief efforts, or at least they'd be far less effective (which is saying a lot given they're barely effective now). Without the UN there would be no forum for various countries to come together and talk on world issues. It brings attention issues and events that might have passed unnoticed.

Hu? The US by itself is the most charitable nation on the planet. We alone have many organizations that deal directly with aid relief efforts all over the world.

And a stage to starve and kill others? Drama much? Yes everyday the US ambassador gets up and boasts about how many babies he's killed that day.

Drama?? What are you smoking man?? Heck we killed over a million Iraqies in our last democracy spreading campain. And had been starving thier children for the better part of 20 years before that. Go tell those folks about drama.

On these boards we have massively paranoid and anti-government people singing the praises of Ron Paul. How unless Paul is elected the US is doomed. How Paul is the only person who can "save" the country. Sounds like worshiping to me, just as bad if not worst than Obama supporters during the last election.

Paul isnt the only person who can save this country. He is just the only one in position who seems to have any will to do so.

That's fine. But you can close bases without ending all of your alliances.

Friendship with other countries is what He stands for.

So American soldiers are storm troopers are they? Interesting. So from what I'm hearing if someone decided that they were going to murder a few million people you would want the US to just stand by and watch? That situations like Rwandan was a good outcome? And I'm sure people in Kosovo would disagree that all interventions are bad.

It was just a expression, I meant no insult to the American soldiers. Especialy considering they give Dr Paul more money then any other GOP candidate combined. Yes Combined. Let the rest of the world take care of those situations. We have been flipping the bill for it for far to long.

The treaties to keep space and the moon neutral, treaties that limited nuclear testing, treaties with the aim of environmental protection, etc etc. Thinking that a country can just do whatever they want and damn the rest of the world is what got the US in the trouble they're in. It seems you're contradicting yourself here. You complain about American foreign policy and yet you want a situation that would allow the US to do more damage internationally.

So you think we cant have agreements with other countries without the UN??

Why do you assume non intervention on the part of the US will do more damage then its done?? How many democraticly elected leaders have to be overthrown by our CIA, only to have savage dictators installed? How could there be any MORE damage done??

[Corp]

If RP is all about friendship with other countries then why is he telling America's allies to p*** off?

Also please provide sources where American diplomats in the UN have talking about how awesome it is that Iraqis are dying.

And RP claims that he'll end all intervention and maybe he will. But what about the next president who comes into power and see there's no treaties in place to stop him from doing whatever the hell he wants?

[sam12six]

I think I have to agree that his ability to do crazy things would be limited. But, my point being, if we know he thinks crazy things are fine, why is he even in the running?

Crazy is both subjective and when applied to Paul, usually based on something taken out of an important context. Most of the governmental constructs he's against, he's not against arbitrarily, he's against them because he believes the FEDERAL government has usurped rights that should belong to the states. Those wanting to put him down though, they say, "He wants to eliminate the Department of Education. He wants Americans to be uneducated!!", like the most transparently stupid campaign ads - yet people believe them.

Given what we think is going to happen in Congress. (Either more of nothing getting done, or possibly a Republican Congress.) Then Romney, Gingrich or Paul all might get the same exact things done. Do we really think that the massive cuts RP wants are going to get through congress looking any different then the milder cuts proposed by Romney? If the most likely outcome of the next Administration will be exactly the same, then why vote for the "Crazy guy"?

Like virtually every politician, the others running have shown they're willing to be whoever they think they need to be to win votes. Their stance on policy changes depending on whom they're speaking to - Paul doesn't do this. Anyone who looks at the situation knows the vast majority of Dems and Repubs that run for president are the same guy with different talking points. Why NOT vote for the "crazy guy" who wants to eliminate things that are weakening our country and who we know would back up what he says with his actions?

This I think is why RPs random poll numbers are always low. I think he is in 4th now.

The one thing RP has going for him is that he is a man of his word. Most of the others are true politicians and you know what they say about a politican moving his mouth...

He gets no mainstream media coverage (unless it's to roll their eyes and say, "Can you believe this guy? What a nut...", and he's still a visible candidate. Hell, he's all but a write in vote. To get any noticeable piece of the vote says his platform is incredibly well received. Don't get me wrong, I believe he'll never get elected (and if he did, he'd die to an "Iranian terrorist" shortly thereafter).

I just have a problem when people voice their opinion that entangling alliances are a good thing and that's what make Paul a bad candidate. Entangling alliances are like being in a gang. If you're in that gang and someone runs in and says, "C'mon dog!! Some bloody cripples just jumped day-day!!", you don't get to ask what day-day did. You don't get decide you're not getting involved because he brought it on himself. If you're in that gang, you fight. I just cannot comprehend why people believe putting our country in that position is a good thing.

If RP is all about friendship with other countries then why is he telling America's allies to p*** off?

Also please provide sources where American diplomats in the UN have talking about how awesome it is that Iraqis are dying.

And RP claims that he'll end all intervention and maybe he will. But what about the next president who comes into power and see there's no treaties in place to stop him from doing whatever the hell he wants?

You equate telling someone, "I'm not committing myself to go to war for you (right or wrong) against someone who has possibly done nothing to me.", with telling them to p*** off?

Dude, I never considered what the lack of treaties could lead to - bombing other countries, invading them, kidnapping their citizens and locking them up without trial so we can circulate broomstick porn starring them - you're right!! Thank goodness we have treaties that prevent presidents from setting such things in motion!!

[Mr_Snstr]

Ron Paul's biggest appeal in my opinion is the fact that he doesn't act like a politician. He's has strong and classical views on independence and freedom as well as how our government should be ran.

Ron Paul's biggest detriment in my opinion when it comes down to elections is the fact that he doesn't act like a politician. He's has strong and classical views on independence and freedom as well as how our government should be ran.

Which ironically, these classical views; which some dispose as outdated; have once again become radical and new. What is it they say about history again, and again, and again?

Edited December 8, 2011 by Mr_Snstr

[ninjadude]

Most of the governmental constructs he's against, he's not against arbitrarily, he's against them because he believes the FEDERAL government has usurped rights that should belong to the states.

That does not make him an authority. I think the moon is made of green cheese but that does not make me fit for president.

Those wanting to put him down though, they say, "He wants to eliminate the Department of Education. He wants Americans to be uneducated!!", like the most transparently stupid campaign ads - yet people believe them.

Please go to the wiki and read what the Dept of ED does. PLEASE. It advocates for education. It loans money so people can go to college. What do you expect will happen when that no longer occurs?

Why NOT vote for the "crazy guy" who wants to eliminate things that are weakening our country and who we know would back up what he says with his actions?

Because they are NOT weakening our country but are strengths. And we don't know any such thing about Ron Paul.

[preacherman76]

If RP is all about friendship with other countries then why is he telling America's allies to p*** off?

Link?

Also please provide sources where American diplomats in the UN have talking about how awesome it is that Iraqis are dying.

What are you talking about?? I stated for a fact that we have used the UN to starve and kill children. I never said anything about them bragging about it.

And RP claims that he'll end all intervention and maybe he will. But what about the next president who comes into power and see there's no treaties in place to stop him from doing whatever the hell he wants?

What stops us from doing whatever we want right now??? Neither congress or the UN aproved of either war in Iraq or Afgan. Yet we bombed them into oblivion anyway.

[Corp]

Link?

I'm rather suprised that such a strong Paul supporter doesn't know that he wants to end all foreign alliances and withdraw from all international organizations.

What are you talking about?? I stated for a fact that we have used the UN to starve and kill children. I never said anything about them bragging about it.

You said that the US is using the UN as a platform to kill and starve people. Which is of course complete foolishness given how much aid they give to UN organizations who's primary goal is to help people who are starving. And perhaps you can give some of the blame for those starving in Iraq to the Iraqi government at the time. Or can all the blame for the mass starvations in North Korea also be put on the US? It's not the massive corruption of local governments, it's all the American's fault!

What stops us from doing whatever we want right now??? Neither congress or the UN aproved of either war in Iraq or Afgan. Yet we bombed them into oblivion anyway.

Various treaties and organizations that the US is currently a part of. There's a reason why the US put so much effort in trying to sell the Iraq War to the world, effort that largely fell on deaf ears. The US wasn't able to get the support they wanted and Iraq was a mess right from the get go. Without the treaties the US wouldn't have bothered trying to sell the war to the UN and their allies and would have just started bombing right away. And you might want to brush up on your knowledge of the subject because the UN does support the Afghan War, though they remained silent when the whole thing started. The troops on the guard are part of the International Security Assistance Force, a UN creation. For Iraq the UN didn't like it from the start and only gave minor support once all was said and done. But the US tried like hell to get their backing since they knew they would need allies and international support for their invasion. Because they know that the world is an international community.

Edited December 9, 2011 by Corp

[sam12six]

That does not make him an authority. I think the moon is made of green cheese but that does not make me fit for president.

If the moon's composition were defined by a legal document the way the nation's rights are, anyone with access to the document could become an authority.

Please go to the wiki and read what the Dept of ED does. PLEASE. It advocates for education. It loans money so people can go to college. What do you expect will happen when that no longer occurs?

Really? I thought they funded furry porn...

I'm not arguing that the Dept of Education does nothing good. Paul argues that constitutionally, the states should be allowed to set their own standards for education. If you disagree with that, cool. Just show where the constitution grants the Federal government that power as opposed to the states and that discussion is over. Forward that link to Paul and he'll probably apologize publicly for misinterpreting the constitution.

You clearly believe an overwhelming nanny state Federal government and powerless state governments is the right course for the country. Paul believes sticking to the power distribution established in the Constitution is the right course.

Because they are NOT weakening our country but are strengths.

That's an opinion and one worth discussing.

And we don't know any such thing about Ron Paul.

LOL. Are you actually trying to imply that probably the most consistent legislator in history would become president and suddenly start flip-flopping on his positions?

[Order66]

Obama is like a used car salesman who will point you to the worst clunker on the lot, but make you think it's the American dream to drive one, or that it used be owned by Teddy Roosevelt.

Five minutes after your drive it off the lot, you say "what was I thinking?" but by then the election is over.

Edited December 9, 2011 by Halloween78

[preacherman76]

I'm rather suprised that such a strong Paul supporter doesn't know that he wants to end all foreign alliances and withdraw from all international organizations.

Saying we as a independant nation arent going to back another in war that has nothing to do with us isnt telling anyone to "p*** off". It simply returning to the idea that we dont allow outsiders to dictate US policy. Its really just common sence.

You said that the US is using the UN as a platform to kill and starve people. Which is of course complete foolishness given how much aid they give to UN organizations who's primary goal is to help people who are starving.

Wait, what??? So cause we give aid to some, means that we didnt place several santions on Iraq where we litteraly denied thier people basic human needs?? Have you been living under a rock for the past 20 years??

And perhaps you can give some of the blame for those starving in Iraq to the Iraqi government at the time. Or can all the blame for the mass starvations in North Korea also be put on the US? It's not the massive corruption of local governments, it's all the American's fault!

Id love to blame it all on Iraq's government. Problem with that is WE ARE THE ONES WHO PUT HIM IN POWER. Things that make you go Hmm. So the people suffer, cause we cant get along with the very dictator we put in place. Tell me exactly how this isnt Americas fault??

Various treaties and organizations that the US is currently a part of. There's a reason why the US put so much effort in trying to sell the Iraq War to the world, effort that largely fell on deaf ears. The US wasn't able to get the support they wanted and Iraq was a mess right from the get go. Without the treaties the US wouldn't have bothered trying to sell the war to the UN and their allies and would have just started bombing right away. And you might want to brush up on your knowledge of the subject because the UN does support the Afghan War, though they remained silent when the whole thing started. The troops on the guard are part of the International Security Assistance Force, a UN creation. For Iraq the UN didn't like it from the start and only gave minor support once all was said and done. But the US tried like hell to get their backing since they knew they would need allies and international support for their invasion. Because they know that the world is an international community.

America shouldnt need support of other countries. If there is need for a declaration of war, the constitution gives a clear outline on how to go about that. We are a sovern nation.

Anyhow, you are right, we tried hard to get UN support. And when we didnt get it, we did what we wanted to anyway. Said screw the UN, and the constitution. So basicaly Im right, we do what ever we want, no matter what. When push comes to shove that is.

[cerberusxp]

I like a few of his ideas, but his leniency towards libertarianism raises too many red flags. Government intervention is necessary to protect the rights of the working class, and that's something I wouldn't risk just because the man has a few progressive views on things like demilitarization. Any politician who is a libertarian is far too radical for me to stomach.

Our economy is going to crash the likes of which have never been before. All the other potentials are big Government spenders. The status quo and the system is rigged to funnel monies from you and I to the Government and the very affluent connected with Government, it has been for generations.. Paul is the ONLY one that can avert this stuff. If the economy isn't corrected everything else is MOOT.

Edited December 10, 2011 by cerberusxp

[The Silver Thong]

I'm rather suprised that such a strong Paul supporter doesn't know that he wants to end all foreign alliances and withdraw from all international organizations.

For the third time that has been asked a link please. Oh and can I ask just out of curiosity who you might back.

[Habitat]

Just be thankful you didn't cop Hillary last time. Somethin' about that woman.....

[Space Commander Travis]

i find all this slightly worrying, to be honest with you; I'd have thought that the days of people falling in love with politicians or would-be politicians would be long past. But now along comes someone who claims to be "not like other Politicians", and people seem to be all over him. Weren't people saying exactly the same thing about Mr. Barack O?

He's a Politician, and he's a Politician who wants, not only Power, but the most powerful job in the world. This, surely, ought to mean that he ought to be regarded with as smuch suspicion as any other.

[preacherman76]

i find all this slightly worrying, to be honest with you; I'd have thought that the days of people falling in love with politicians or would-be politicians would be long past. But now along comes someone who claims to be "not like other Politicians", and people seem to be all over him. Weren't people saying exactly the same thing about Mr. Barack O?

He's a Politician, and he's a Politician who wants, not only Power, but the most powerful job in the world. This, surely, ought to mean that he ought to be regarded with as smuch suspicion as any other.

I understand your concern 747. I even joke with my friends that the man might be the anti christ.

I litteraly trust no politician. And if Ron Paul was elected Id keep a closer eye on him then I have past administrations. Mostly cause I already knew just from doing a little digging, that all the others were sold out scum. The thing about Ron Paul is, no matter how much I dig, I cant find any reason, over a very long political career, that he shouldnt get this job. He is by far the single most consistant, freedom loving congressmen that we have seen in our life times. His speeches from the 70's mirror the speeches he gives today. His voting record mirrors the will of the constitution.

As far as 0bama is concerned, I personaly sniffed is lieing corupted butt out in 15 mins flat. But people didnt want to know anymore about the man then what main stream told them. And they told us he was basicaly God. Just looking at his voting record in the senate alone could have told you this isnt our guy. Any honest person after looking at both 0bama, and Paul, would have to conclude they just are not comparable.