Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

Shiftiness And Doublespeak

September 14, 2011 by  

Shiftiness And Doublespeak

Some random observations from Monday night’s Tea Party GOP debate in Tampa, Fla.:

  • Michele Bachmann said she would bring a copy of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution with her to the White House. Apparently, her version of the Constitution omits the 4th Amendment. How else to explain her votes to renew the misnamed and unAmerican USA Patriot Act? Doublespeak!
  • Rick Perry fumbled on his response to Bachmann’s attacks on the Gardasil vaccine and crony capitalism. He is vulnerable there. He’s also vulnerable on his stance on illegal immigration. His views on those subjects are anathema to Tea Party voters. He said he was offended that Bachmann would suggest he could be bought for a $5,000 campaign contribution. Actually, it takes more. Like $30,000 in the case of Merck. Shiftiness!
  • Mitt Romney said Social Security isn’t a Ponzi scheme and that it’s wrong to scare seniors by using the word. Either Romney doesn’t understand how Social Security works (which I doubt), he doesn’t know what a Ponzi scheme is (which I doubt) or he’s lying because he fears facing the truth about Social Security, which is broke and is government-sponsored theft. Doublespeak!
  • Ron Paul drew boos when he told the truth: that al-Qaida said it attacked the United States because the U.S. had troops stationed in Saudi Arabia, which the Muslims consider holy ground. Tea Party people are still not ready to face the fact that U.S. militarism, bombing and nation-building is not winning friends in the Mideast.
  • Newt Gingrich would be polling higher if he weren’t Newt Gingrich. Shiftiness!
  • Herman Cain said he believed the Federal Reserve should be audited. That’s a complete flip-flop from his earlier position. Shiftiness!
  • Perry and Gingrich also say they want the Federal Reserve audited. It’s a political ploy for them. Shiftiness!
  • Jon Huntsman told an immigrant from Afghanistan that the U.S. needs to remove its troops from that country. He told the truth.
  • Rick Santorum called Perry’s executive order requiring girls be injected with Gardasil “big government run amok.” He should know it when he sees it. He continued to defend the Medicare prescription drug program he voted for under President George W. Bush, saying the waste needs to be cut. Doublespeak!
  • If Ron Paul is unelectable, why are so many of the candidates echoing his positions? Shiftiness and doublespeak on their part!

And here’s a little tidbit for those who continue to insist that Ron Paul is unelectable. In a CNN/ORC poll of likely voters conducted Sept. 9-11, Ron Paul placed third with 13 percent. That’s behind Perry’s 32 percent and Romney’s 21 percent, but Paul is up 7 percent since the last CNN/ORC poll conducted Aug. 24-25.

Clearly, Paul’s performance in the debates — even though he is receiving fewer questions than Perry and Romney — is behind this surge.

Bob Livingston

is an ultra-conservative American and author of The Bob Livingston Letter™, founded in 1969. Bob has devoted much of his life to research and the quest for truth on a variety of subjects. Bob specializes in health issues such as nutritional supplements and alternatives to drugs, as well as issues of privacy (both personal and financial), asset protection and the preservation of freedom.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Shiftiness And Doublespeak”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • s c

    On the whole, I’d say that the above list proves that if you hang around America’s wackos long enough, their brain-stunting thinking will rub off and it will be hard to tell the difference between one group of candidates and the other.
    It also needs to be said that if America’s wackos hang around conservatives long enough (500 to a thousand years), maybe some results can be expected. Sadly, when someone is brainwashed at an early age (and fed a steady stream of political sewage), common sense can be lost forever. Speaking of Obummer’s czars . . .

    • BigBadJohn

      It is not just hanging around with wacko’s – it is the whole system.

      In order to get votes candidates have to play the pulse of the voting public and promise them what they want even if it is not what the big campaign contributors want.

      Once elected, they have keep the campaign money rolling in so they betray the voters trust and do what big business wants them to do.
      The big flip flop that has cost American jobs and it’s competitive future. This goes for BOTH parties not just D or R.

      • EyesWideOpen

        What we need to find out about anyone up for election is what organizations they are affiliated with. Free Masonry is the common denominator in the groups that are pushing the One World Agenda: The Illuminati (yes, it still exists), Masons, Shriners, Rotary Club International, Trilateral Commission, United Nations, Council of Foreign Affairs, Bilderberger Institute, Labor Unions, Vatican, and the National Conferences of many Protestant religions! To see a list of the people that belong to these groups just enter “the worlds’ richest people” into your search bar on the internet. These people know that in order to get the citizens of the countries of the world to accept this One World System that they must first crush the economies of each country so that we will accept this system rather than starve to death. But know that anyone that is not part of their group will become enslaved! Just look at what is happening today, open your eyes and see the truth!

        • john

          Eyes Wide Open. the truth and words of wisdom.people,you better take heed.

        • Thinking About

          Eyes you sound like you have a severe case of cant help its and don’t want to. You blame everyone else and don’t contribute anything.

        • Verus Langham

          For EyesWideOpen: What!! You’ve run out of thoughts so now you are into cut and paste…. I read this exact same comment you posted on another article on this site and I must say… I’m appalled that somebody who seems to think to say so much cannot offer new fodder when shifting to another venue of thought.
          Ron Paul’s affiliation with/or not the Free Masons has nothing at all about what he presents for we the people to consider, knowing full-well that everything he utters is heard and doggedly pursued by the de-railers, the nitpicks, the cynics, et al. I presume he is a man of conscience because he seems to be one committed to factual matter that he has researched or perhaps personal oversight on – or both, and deigns (in the sense of the word 1)to think it appropriate to one’s dignity/ and not in the sense 2)to condescend or stoop to give or offer) it in our interest to know these things he puts forth. George Washington’s membership in the Free Mason lodge is well-documented and the symbols of that body of persons are used throughout official documents and papers from the beginnings of our Constitutional Republic. The upside of masonry is that they contribute much more than many others in their charitable and social outsourcing of their wisdoms, their expertise, their works. I am no mason, to be certain, but of them I have from long years of observation found them to be the most delightful and intelligent of people – certainly not the threat you seem erroneously committed to making them out to be. Ron Paul is, by all evidences a viable candidate… one has only to hear those last words in this article: ” * If Ron Paul is unelectable, why are so many of the candidates echoing his positions? And here’s a little tidbit for those who continue to insist that Ron Paul is unelectable. In a CNN/ORC poll of likely voters conducted Sept. 9-11, Ron Paul placed third with 13 percent. That’s behind Perry’s 32 percent and Romney’s 21 percent, but Paul is up 7 percent since the last CNN/ORC poll conducted Aug. 24-25.
          Clearly, Paul’s performance in the debates — even though he is receiving fewer questions than Perry and Romney — is behind this surge.”
          We need to stick to the subject matter, don’t you think?

    • CJ

      I’ll keep saying, you can’t fix a broken system with only faulty parts to choose from. Unless we get a choice of someone who is really intent on FIXING it the right way, our elections will be little more than eliminating the worst of the bad options we have to choose from. As long as people vote strictly on self interest and not the greater good, nothing will change.

      • eddie47d

        Excellent CJ.

    • Verus Langham

      Yet another Darwinian evolutionary construct if ever I heard one. It hasn’t taken the Democratic Party nearly that long to evolve into a socialist’s dream and a patriot’s nightmare… wherein all sense of civility and statesmanship have lost their meaning and the rule of the day is that if a Republican conservative Tea-Party(er) Christian voices it it must be one of “America’s wackos.” Those of you who believe that our “brain-stunting thinking will rub off and it will be hard to tell the difference between one group of candidates and the other” may just be onto something… something wholesome and worthwhile should overturn even the worst case scenario (and it won’t take “500 to a thousand years” to accomplish) wherein all commonsense and straight-thinking men of conscience cannot negotiate their ways through plain-spoken and truthful commentary without using denigrating tactics and rely instead upon flash-mob mentality. What next… attack and destroy all who oppose our personal views?

  • Thom Peschke

    Ron Paul’s domestic policies are great, but his view of foreign affairs are what is wrong with him. Israel is our ally and Iran wants to kill all the Jews and Christians. So, you may NEED to step in if inaction will result in an impact on American security or lives.
    Secondly, people are allowed to shift their views as they learn. 50 years ago, I was a bleeding heart liberal, but the military forced me to see the world for what it is and now, if I was a duck, I would have two right wings! You going to convict me because I learned from the errors of my ways?

    • Danny

      I to disagree with some of Ron Paul’s foreign policy, but RIGHT NOW we need someone to get America back on track. Foreign policy is very important, but when you are going in the toilet, your first reaction is to try to get out of the toilet, and then worry about who was flushing it.

      • eddie47d

        Ron Paul is very pro defense in protecting America. He also sees the folly of posting troops in foreign lands which breeds resentment and escalated wars.

        • JeffH

          Well said and I agree…

          • http://www,pappymart.com John Hanna

            Yeah but Paul said it wrong.
            Sure, Bin Laden might not have slaughtered civilians at that particular moment without the excuse of the bases but his ilk will be slaughtering you sooner or later for some other reason even if it isn’t as glaring as bases permitted by his government on ‘holy ground’.
            Paul made it sound like it was our fault and Bin was justified in his actions. Any religious fundamentalist that uses the murder stick will be offended at nothing less that complete submission and even then will trim out those that aren’t completely submissive properly.
            That’s a big point. Close the base is one thing, appease the likes of Bin Laden is another.

        • AJ

          Ya and lot’s of money for the Military Industrial Complex.

    • Commonsense

      I agree with everything Ron Paul says, including that we need to get out of other countrys’ business and stick to our own knitting. As for Israel, I believe in helping them when they want it. Anybody out there that thinks Isreal is some old dog without any teeth is a fool! Right now we are getting in their way! They are willing to take care of alot of these terrorists if we just let them do it their way. But NO! Got that damn UN BS in the way. People better wake up, stop babysitting 3rd world countries and take care of our selves. Strengthen yourself, watch your neighbors, keep your surveillance sharp, and if some dump in Africa wants to take over another dump, let them. Not our problem! If they come over here wanting to play rough, wipe them from existance and then shake your finger at the world and say quietly-LEAVE US ALONE! And you’d be surprised how fast the others will listen.

      • ekim

        I would have to say that is commonsense !

    • Cheeky Monkey

      The solution to the problem is to elect BOTH the pres. and vice-pres separately. One for domestic policies and one for foreign. During the Eisenhower years Ike handled the domestic policy and Nixon dealt with the foreign policy. Regardless of what Tricky Dick did later in his career, he actually did a pretty good job under Eisenhower. So if we were to pair Ron Paul with someone with a strong diplomatic background – and only Huntsman of the current candidates has that kind of experience – then add a strong Sec. of State – with the intelligence of Kissinger – then we would have a reasonable expectation of a govt. that could handle any situation that may come up. Unfortunately I really don’t see this happening at this point in the debate.

      • s c

        CM, how can you have any use for Kissinger? That’s like saying you’re a hardcore RINO. Kissinger didn’t do Nixon any good, and if he was in and out of the W H at the moment, he wouldn’t be doing anything good for America.
        Either you said Kissinger and meant to say someone else, or you have a blind side in your memory that needs to be patched. Guy, it’s people like Kissinger who has made America more like a Third World country since the ’70s. Intelligence, yes. Kissinger, NEVER.

    • DeJay

      Israel is not our ally. Israel controls our government.

      • Nadzieja Batki

        Prove it.

      • Verus Langham

        DeJay, I do not know why anybody of any degree of intelligence would even deign to qualify your comment with a reply…. myself – having felt the urgent need to laugh out loud when I read it, after it failed to digest I had to attack it by saying that the author of those words of pure insanity should never speak when in the presence of truthful men and women because the backlash would be complete and simultaneous. You have made of yourself a laughingstock.

  • dan

    ….speaking of Obama’s Zombies and public-school brainwashed
    village idiots for Algore ….I’m still hoping for a little change.
    Czars rule over peasants ….here in this Republic,We the People rule over our designated servants.Elections aren’t talent shows or popularity contests…and I don’t give a rip about the opinions of the moderators “hosting” these dog and pony “debates” . I’ll be voting on the record/past performance (ie character) of these potential servants.

  • Capitalist at Birth

    Bob, Your ardent support for Ron Paul will lead me to stop reading your posts. Many of us agree with Ron Paul on the Federal Reserve and sound monetary policies. Most of the people in America do not agree with his ideas on Foreign Policy. It is okay for Iran to have nukes? Are you serious? I would make Ron Paul Secretary of the Treasury, and keep him away from State and Defense. I left the Libertarian Party in 1986 because of their stance on open borders. I voted for Roger McBride in 1984.

    • http://www.boblivingstonletter.com/ Bob Livingston

      Dear Capitalist at Birth,

      That is certainly a choice you have. You ask, is it ok for Iran to have nukes? I would rather they did not. However, it is perfectly rational on their part to desire them. After all, their enemies around them have them. Iran has no air force or navy with which to deliver nuclear weapons to our shores. But we are a broke nation; broke because we have our military spread out around the globe meddling in the affairs of other nations.

      Ask yourself this question. If Russia decided it wanted to put a stop to the violence in Mexico and sent in an Army to defeat the drug cartels and set up a puppet government that behaved in a way that Russia approved, would that sit well with you? If “insurgents” from neighboring border states began to fight with Russia to try and throw them out Mexico and Russia began targeting those insurgents in the U.S. states, would that be acceptable to you?

      I trust you say it would not. What then gives the United States the right to invade or bomb another country just because we disagree with their leadership or the fact that they have people living there who hate the US? Is it just because we can?

      Have you even read Ron Paul’s stance on foreign policy, or are you relying on what you’ve read in the mainstream media.

      Here is Ron Paul’s foreign policy philosophy from his web site:
      * Avoid long and expensive land wars that bankrupt our country by using constitutional means to capture or kill terrorist leaders who helped attack the U.S. and continue to plot further attacks.

      * Guarantee our intelligence community’s efforts are directed toward legitimate threats and not spying on innocent Americans through unconstitutional power grabs like the Patriot Act.

      * End the nation-building that is draining troop morale, increasing our debt, and sacrificing lives with no end in sight.

      * Follow the Constitution by asking Congress to declare war before one is waged.

      * Only send our military into conflict with a clear mission and all the tools they need to complete the job – and then bring them home.

      * Ensure our veterans receive the care, benefits, and honors they have earned when they return.

      * Revitalize the military for the 21st century by eliminating waste in a trillion-dollar military budget.

      * Prevent the TSA from forcing Americans to either be groped or ogled just to travel on an airplane and ultimately abolish the unconstitutional agency.

      * Stop taking money from the middle class and the poor to give to rich dictators through foreign aid.

      Please explain which of those policies you disagree with and why.

      Best wishes,
      Bob

      PS: On securing our borders:
      * Make securing our borders the top national security priority.

      • http://none bob jones

        Great points Bob, Ron Paul is the only candidate that stands out with his consistent, constitutional plans and ideas. Most of the other candidates are just the same old crap that most of us have grown so tired of and so disgusted with because of their lack of honesty and integrity and complete disregard for our Constitution. Just like since 2008 with Sarah Palin, the corrupt lamestream media tells us who scares them the most with their drive-by attacks and quite often in the case of Ron Paul, with their attempts to ignore and marginalize Mr Paul. It is obviously very tough for most of the media and most congresspersons to support a man who has displayed nothing but honesty, integrity and unyielding support for our Constitution throughout his life, when they have absolutely nothing in their own lives to compare it to.

      • Dan az

        Thanks Bob
        If the media would give him time and stop twisting his words then there wouldn’t be so many people saying the same things that republican at birth thinks.We need to demand more time and have people asking the tough questions to quit cutting him off and rolling their eyes when he tries to explain his stance on issues.This is a problem with only getting half the message.Keep up the good work!

        • Capitalist at Birth

          Nobody has to twist his words. Most people interpret many of his statements as loonacy.

          • JeffH

            Most? Only those that rely on what they here through the MSM.

          • http://www.boblivingstonletter.com/ Bob Livingston

            Dear Capitalist at Birth,

            I ask again, which of the above positions do you disagree with?

            Best wishes,
            Bob

      • Capitalist at Birth

        The second in command of AlQuida had set up training camps in Iraq in 1998, and was in Iraq receiving medical care there from injuries suffered in Afghanistan after we attacked.

        • Capitalist at Birth

          What would Ron Paul have done after the September 11, 2001 attacks? Nothing? Could we have done something else? I would have prefered that we bombed Iraq into the stone age without ground troups. This group of Islamic Facsists is hell bent on killing all Christians and Jews. What would Ron Paul do about that? He said he would trade with Iran. That does not make alot of sense to me. Evidently it does to you. I am sorry for you.

          • Dan az

            CB
            Let me think here hmmm The biggest share of our oil comes from where?oh thats right Iran and you think bombing them is a good thing.If Ron paul had been in office on 9/11 there would still be buildings standing!I’m sure you don’t get it but hey its your opinion right?

          • Sam I am

            Do you have any idea how many people die from heart attacks, stroke, and car accidents every year? I mean if the ultimate goal our nation is to protect AMERICAN human life which is the supposed goal of our war on terror, then what are we doing to address the leading cuases of death in this country? Why aren’t we drawling up plans to bomb auto makers and DMVs who allow crappy drivers to drive in this country with depleted uranium rounds? For that matter, why haven’t we forceably gotten rid of MacDonalds and other fast food chains and instead ensure you can only get salads lest more of us die from cancer and heart attacks decades and decades from now? Funny, you don’t seem too concerned about real causes of death in this country, but you are ready to nuke the middle east to avenge 3000 from 911 (that many probably die in car accidents in this country every few days)

          • Karolyn

            I wish all of our armed forces would refuse to fight in other countries! I watched “We Were Soldiers” the other night and cried at all the soldiers who died and were disabled in Viet Nam for NOTHING; and we keep on getting them killed for NOTHING. Just to show we are the big baddie on the block? Going into Afghanistan and Iraq after 9/11 was futile. There will always be terrorists no matter how many we kill or how many of our own are killed.

          • Dan az

            Karolyn
            Good movie!Thats the point we are there to make them think democracy is a good thing!Even when were not one either!We go to every country in the world telling them that they need to be like us or die!Now the UN is calling the shots and letting our boys and girls play by there rules of engagement and letting us sit like ducks in a pond.If someone attacks us then we go to exterminate them then leave but thats just not going to happen when we have a prez that takes orders from the UN.We not only give our blood but pay them for the privilege to control the world with our taxes.5 wars now and more in site so when dose it all end?

          • metalflyer11

            The problem for some people not understanding or accepting Ron Paul’s foreign policy is because they very strongly believe the story we have been fed day in and day out since 9/11 that islam wants to destroy America at all cost. To me the war on terror as portrayed by our Gov. through the media is an absolute FRAUD. The establishment needed a new enemy since the Soviet Union was out of the picture. They are leading us to a war that has no end and allways make us think about our SECURITY. Well, if you want great security because the boogie man is constantly in the watch to get us and destroy us then we need to surrender our liberties. But then who watches the watchers. This is why Ben Franklyn made his famous remark: “Those who surrender liberty for security will get neither” To me the terrorists are the people in power who benefit from these wars. Those are the ones to question? Otherwise we are going in the same path as Nazi Germany took with Hitler’s propaganda of the enemy. For them it was the Jews, for us are the Muslims.

      • Collegeboy

        Bob (Livingston) your analysis of Ron Paul’s position makes me think of what he has said – and not how he has said it!
        I agree with most of his positions – I still have a little problem with the extent (or, perhaps, the degree) of his ‘isolationist’ statements – but, I guess my main problem is getting past his delivery of his message.
        One cannot fault his consistency of message (he has been consistent for years); nor, the insight he brings to domestic and economic policy issues; I have no problem with his blunt, ‘say-it-like-it-is’ style.
        However, I still find myself extremely turned off by his strident, nearly fanatical, expression of those principles.
        I believe one can have ultra conservative, or even libertarian, ideas and goals; but I also believe that such an “extremist” delivery overshadows the message. One can take an extreme position (relative to the “norm”), but how that position is presented/described can greatly influence how it is perceived.
        It is that ‘extremist’, nearly ‘fanatical’ delivery that Dr.Paul uses that scares off so many who would otherwise be inclined to listen to his message.
        I don’t question where his heart is – and we know where he stands (exactly as he states it) – but, is he going to be effective in getting those ideas implemented? Are there others who are not quite as ‘four-square’ with what we want done; but who will be better at getting their ideas put into action?
        Therein lies the dilema of this Republican primary season.

        • Dan az

          Collegeboy
          If nobody is listening or not getting the picture what else is it going to take but get a little louder each time?Hey we saw what a smooth talker got us and all he did is read what he was suppose to.I would bet that if Paul got in there would not be a monitor in the room.When I’m not being heard I ask them to stick a finger in their ear so not to let it fall out when I speak.I guess we cant do that but it would be nice if he had an hour to just speak his mind with out a clock ticking down on his every word.Then maybe he could expand on his Ideas and everyone wouldn’t get the wrong picture.For me its easy I believe in freedom and liberty and truth that evades most politicians and know matter what his policies are what we need now.

    • TML

      “It is okay for Iran to have nukes? Are you serious?”

      What you aren’t getting… is that this isn’t for you/us to decide. You can not in one hand say you are for freedom and liberty, while in the other act as a despot against other countries, and not be a blantant hypocrite. Think about it.

      • BigBadJohn

        sorry not going to look it up right now, however, I read a very good argument that once a country become nuclear capable they actually become more stable and less likely to pull the trigger on some radical cause. Because they know that once they have nukes, all the other countries that have nukes, now have that new country included in their attack plans.

        Most countries are just looking for credibility and recognition from the world community by pursuing nukes. Iran would never nuke Israel, because they know that Iran would become a glass parking lot.

    • Vern Holford

      So Capitalist at Birth, when did you become a Socialist? Our current foriegn policy is a socialist/interventionist attitude. The money spent on the stupid empire and the wars is killing us.

      • eddie47d

        Now Vern that would make Presidents Johnson,Nixon,Reagan,H. Bush,Clinton,G.Bush and Obama all Socialists using your criteria.

        • AJ

          Eddie they all are Socialists. NWO Socialists. They were all just a bunch of hand puppets.

        • bob wire

          So? ~ just which president does butter your bread pray tell?

          They are just “presidents” not rulers! We don’t have KINGS.

      • Capitalist at Birth

        I will not dignify your question with an answer. I am not a non-interventionist. What are you going to do when Ron Paul does not get the Republican nomination? Waste your vote on a write in or vote for the Libertarian candidate? Whic, will only guarantee the re-election of Obama.

        • Capitalist at Birth

          Which

          • Dan az

            ya gotta pay to play!

        • TML

          “Which, will only guarantee the re-election of Obama.”

          So are you saying that if it was Ron Paul running against Obama, that you would choose Obama?

          Non Sequitur, your reasoning does not follow the premise.

        • TML

          “I am not a non-interventionist.”

          And actually he/she said you were interventionalist.
          Ron Paul is non-interventionalist.

  • Pat

    EXCELLENT…..have been a registered republican all my voting life and have voted for whoever the stinkin republicans have put out there for us…(and holding my nose doing it)…..I think this time I’m voting Ron Paul….

    • SJvet

      It’s unfortunate that so many people are going to help keep Obama in the WH by voting for Ron Paul. The problem with Republicans/conservatives is that they never seem to learn, even after shooing in clinton and obama.

      • Pat

        Read Bob’s reply above…..

        Also…I think Mickey Mouse could beat obama right now…so lame excuse…

      • Randy Huffey

        SJvet,
        You couldn’t be more wrong! We are selecting a republican nominee, this isn’t the general election. Ron Paul attracts many votes from young people, libertarians and anti-war democrats. If he doesn’t win the republican nomination, we will not have these huge new groups voting republican in the general election. If ever there was a chance to elect a constitutional conservative to the presidency, it is now as Obama’s popularity is low and going down. If Ron Paul is not the nominee, we will loose these new additions to the republican party.
        If Ron Paul is not the nominee, it therefore could be said it was the ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS that threw the election to the democrats by running a RHINO! Ron Paul is running (for now) as a republican. His support is solid and every vote that switches from an ESTABLISHMENT GLOBALIST republican to him is solid because they have done the research to see that his policies are based on the constitution, not on “I have the better idea”!

        • Capitalist at Birth

          He will not be the nominee. End of discussion.

          • Dan az

            Capitalist
            If it were up to just you I would just turn off this computer and give up like you.Your logic is flawed and your attitude is not anything to write home about.I’m glad to see that so many people are waking up to the fact that its people like you that put us here in the first place.

      • Robert A Hirschmann

        Why in the world do you think Obama will beat Ron Paul? If enough patriots vote in Ron Paul instead of the other RINOs that are in the lead, he could win in a heartbeat. I just wish the Tea Party would give him the support that he needs and stop catering to Perry and Romney.

      • TML

        “people are going to help keep Obama in the WH by voting for Ron Paul.”

        Non Sequitur

      • Karolyn

        It’s unfortunate so many Americans don’t have the cujones to do the right thing!

        • Dan az

          Karolyn
          The odds are against them and they know it.If I were a betting man I would say that Ron Paul will take the seat this time because every person with a IQ over 3 would have figured out by now that we are all doomed if he dosen’t get it.

      • Bob in Boston

        SJ Vet – Ron Paul stacks up best against Obama in most polls, you just don’t get to see that because the media doesn’t want you to. Doctor Paul has an ability to bring in independents, young people, and disenfranchised Democrats (blue Republicans) that no other candidate can touch. A vote for someone like Romney or Perry is a vote for Obama, because nobody wants more of the same!

        • KP

          Blame the media. I am so tired of that BS. If you really know that, prove it with veriafiable FACTS~

  • http://yahoo skyraider 6

    ok now can this be the beginning of the end for the phoney in the wh let him take holder reid and pelosi with him

  • Gene

    Ron Paul is neither left or right he is off the planet.

    • Alex

      I’d rather say that he is out of this world. lol

    • Dan az

      So you two guys don’t believe in the constitution huh?Why are you even here?Oh that’s right all the freebee’s that you wont work for and by keeping your alah in charge you can count on another 4 yrs of the same thing.Sorry but if you don’t get your heads out of your azz’s soon you will be working for free as a slave that you are.If you haven’t figured it out yet we are not going to make it another four years and neither are you.

      • JeffH

        Brother Dan, you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink, but dangle a carrot under his nose and he will eat, even if he is not hungry.

        • Dan az

          Brother that fits perfectly obummer just keeps dangling that free carrot and they cant see anything but that damn carrot.

          • JeffH

            You’re looking rathe “Husky” today! Do you speak “Malamute” too?

          • Dan az

            Just looooooone Wolf :)

          • Dan az

            Hey is that Al Gore or is it you?If it is I wouldn’t walk around like that without a face mask! :)

          • Dan az

            Well?

          • JeffH

            :) It was Al “Gorged”…but it was so ugly I couldn’t stand it myself. Still shiverin’!

          • Dan az

            Fewwww you had me worried there for a moment!That one was as bad as the pelousy look that you took for awhile,scary chit man :)

  • van

    If Paul loses the election, we wil have another globalist in the White House.

    • Randy Huffey

      Van,
      Ron Paul will WIN the general election easier than any other candidate. He brings many anti-war democrats, young people and libertarians to the Republican Party. Among independents, he polls higher than any of the other candidates. If the republicans loose the general election it will be BECAUSE they choose another pro-war GLOBALIST ESTABISHMENT candidate ignoring the new potential additions to the Republican Party.

  • Free Mind

    With the exception of Ron Paul, they are all business as usual.

    Understand something: The ‘Republicrats’ are a One Party system with One Agenda.

    Ron Paul is a prophet and the only real statesman of the bunch. Therefore he won’t be heeded and if a miracle occurs and he somehow wins, he will be martyed.

    Resist Authority, fight back.

    • Al Sieber

      I’ll second that!!

    • Pat

      I agree….I have finally figured out that republicans and democrats HAVE THE SAME AGENDA…the only difference being is that the democrats are on ‘fast forward’……..

  • http://yahoo skyraider 6

    vote for canidates on their record not a smile look at what it got us last time a complete fool

  • 4-just_us

    Ron Paul is my only hope to get America back on track.
    D.D. Eisenhower warned about the military industrial complex, but
    America didn’t listen. Our leaders think that we Americans have
    a right police the world, invade any country, bomb any country at
    any time we want. Were the 600 pound gorilla drunk on power and
    control. We have no humbleness as Bush and Cheney have proven.
    I have no doubt why some people want to get back at the USA.

  • http://www.easyinvest.co.za peter

    Seems that the USA has got lots of problems to solve and with this lot of “candidates” together with Obama and his cohorts, the voters must be getting very anxious about the elections in 2012. So much confusion and so little genuine talent to choose from! Is that what is known as Hobsons choice? What happens when you know that your chosen leaders are both corrupt and incompetent? Is despair the correct word? Desperate times ahead, so buckle up and prepare for what is to come. If nothing surprises you, just hang in there, since you are shortly to be very surprised, shocked and stunned. The worst part is that you will not be able to do anything about it. By placing your faith in any of these candidates, you are about to find out that at the end of the day no one can be trusted anymore and that your desire for “hope and change” is a pipe dream, because folks who are charged with the mandate to govern still do not know the difference between need and want. Most of these “chosen ones” consider need and want to be the same which is why the world is so confused now. What does one do when there are no candidates worth voting for? Forget Democrat and forget Republican, go for the Independent, that could be the best option.

  • http://PersonalLibertyDigest R_O_N_N_Y

    Congrats to Dr. Paul for FINALLY talking straight about US overseas adventures. Americans as a whole are loath to accept that just maybe, just maybe, their own actions cause negative reactions. Having worked for various government agencies for over 29 years, most of which were with the Department of Defense, I echo Dr. Paul’s distinction–there is a difference between National Defense and the Department of Defense. DoD has become a big business for senior officers to build careers and for contractors to make big bucks. Who pays the price–beyond the obvious taxpayers–the fine men and women who give up more than anyone realizes to serve their country. Bring the troops home—from all 900+ overseas bases and let us begin to focus on the problems in this country.

    • JeffH

      2 thumbs up! :)

  • Danny

    AMEN

  • kammel7

    R_O_N_N_Y thank you for bringing your experience to the conversation. My only contention with your comment is that Dr. Paul has been talking straight for decades, it’s just that nobody has listened (& after the last debate, I’m afraid they’re still not listening). But, I’m trying to remain optimistic! Can you imagine anyone even considering auditing the Fed (other than Dr. Paul) just a few short years ago?

    • Robert A Hirschmann

      It’s a real shame that the common folks vote for the ‘pretty people’ rather then the ones that will be best for us. The two leading RINOS are just that, Republicans In Name Only. I’ve been a republican all my life but since the Tea Party started I am now a proud Tea Party member. My choice is Ron Paul because he is the only candidate that will turn this country around. Everyone knows that Obama is leading us towards destruction but just voting republican will not be the answer. We need a republican that will make a difference. We need a leader that will follow the Constitution (as in ‘I swear to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States’) as pledged when taking office. As I see it Ron Paul is that leader. If he is not nominated as the republican candidate I can assure you that there will be ‘business as usual’ in Washington in 2012.

  • Stunned at sunset

    What can I say, Bob. You’ve said it all. The ruling elite is offering a choice between Democrat-sponsored puppets and Republican-sponsored puppets and they seemed to have infected the attitudes of the Tea Party too! People have to recognize 1984-Orwellian-doublespeak when they hear it. A law that does away with Constitutional Rights and puts us all under Admiralty Law and Commercial Code is NOT something we can call a “Patriot Act.” If the American people really want that law to continue they should give a name that fits like “The Police State Enfranchisement and Enslavement Act.” But, we wouldn’t want people to understand things as they ARE. They need only to understand things as the SHOULD BE.

  • Aranna

    Everyone keeps saying Ron Paul is unelectable, Why is that??
    did he not buy enough people? I know the Government hates honesty, but
    to me that’s all the more reason the American people should vote Dr.Paul in…I don’t get it…

    • Stunned at sunset

      Forgive me, Aranna: I should have mentioned that I support Dr. Paul and have sent him a donation. I don’t like to think of him as a “Republican” because he hasn’t been bought hook, line, and sinker like the rest of them have and he refuses to cave into “special interests” which is all the more reason to vote for him! And, use the write-in ballot if he doesn’t appear on the voting machines when the time comes. He has to be elected by popular demand!

  • Winnie

    When 9/11 happened, I thought that the leaders of the United States would gather all Americans and concentrade attack on those who took almost 3,000 Americans lives on that date. This being, bringing back all military troops from all bases and use the true might against which I would have assumed to be Saude Arabia and Afganistan. Instead the two idiots in power went after Afganistan and Irag. Those two, Bush and Cheney, must have rejoiced for the change to go after Irag because they would have gone after Saddem no matter what at sometime within their four-year reign. Now the USA will never..
    ….never be what it could have been because of the the two idiots and their cohorsts.

  • Shyguy2011

    Bob – your article and critique of the ‘debate’ about Ron Paul and his foreign policy stance/views has a lot of merit. Unfortunately, during all of the debates I have watched over the years that Ron Paul has been a part of, he spends too much time blathering and debating the moderators rather than taking the time to explain in some detail what he believes we should be doing. He is a poor communicator, period.

    • Vern Holford

      Concidering the time he has, he does a great job. You need to check out his web site. He’s not surging in the polls because he is a poor communicator. His apponents are parroting him because he is resonating and they know he is the one they have to beat.

  • KP

    Paul makes a lot of sense re war policy, but his willingness to let uninsured people go without treatment is barbaric. Get the churches to help?…is he kidding!

    • mrcave

      I’m pretty sure that hospitals cannot deny critical care to anybody. In my own life, they have been willing to accept payments over time, and will work with people to reduce charges from normal rates, to discounted rates.

      Sure, you don’t get off the hook for your bill, but then there’s that darn “taking personal responsibility” thing again. Then too, there really are charitable organizations, churches, and such that do offer help to the truly in need.

      Did Ron Paul say to deny treatment? No.

      • KP

        Hospitals so far do not refuse to care, but someone pays for that care. A few days inthe hospital today can cost seventy,eighty,thousand dollars or more. Churches and chartable organizations are going to cover costs like that? Maybe the hospitals should just go down the basement and print the money. So Insurance or not is another “you pay me now or you pay me later.”

  • Buck

    I was pre-occupied toward the end of the debate and missed the most important part . I heard but didn’t see who said he would bring his Harley motorcycle to the white house . someone please comment and tell me , as this is obviously a man who understands TRUE freedom . Thank You

  • “JAVOPE”

    Ron Paul is the only one that is the same as he was yesterday, today, and will be tomorrow. CONSTITUTION! CONSTITUTION! CONSTITUTION!

  • KDavenport

    I am tired of them all, and you scare me Bob. Ron Paul may have been telling the truth on what the Muslims are saying about why 9/11 was carried out, but we can’t listen to what they are saying, we have to pay attention to what they are doing. They are following the outline in the Quran. That is to rid the world of all Infidels. That is us in case you’re not sure. Do you know that all over the world, the Muslim leaders were saying that the Jews and our government are the ones that planned and carried out the terrorist attacks on 9/11?? They are saying that 3000 Jews did not show up for work at the trade center because they knew of the plot?? This lie is being told all over the world including the US and the Muslims are buying it. Muslims hate us because their holy book tells them they must, and they are using all kinds of propaganda including lies to get what they want and what their religion teaches. It teaches that eventually the 12th Imam will come back but before that can happen; the world has to be taken over by the Muslim faith and ethnic cleansing needs to take place. I am terrified of Ron Paul and his assertion that we should just leave the Middle East and let Iran have their bomb, and out the other side of his mouth, he says we should back Israel. We can’t do both. We need to back Israel at all costs. Don’t think so? Read the Old Testament. As Americans, I believe we still like to look for the good in people because as a whole, there are more good people in the US. We WANT to believe in what people say. Guess what? You CAN’T believe a Muslim when they say they are not violent, because you have to hear what they are saying through their leaders and what their holy book says. It says that lying to Infidels is OK if it is to rid the world of them. Guess who the Infidels are? Every one of us who is not Muslim. The bottom line is “YOU CAN”T FIGHT CRAZY” and that is what the Muslim religion is. I continue to be amazed at how the left is so OK with all of the Muslim churches, rituals and laws, which teaches nothing but hatred, violation and intolerance, but they are not OK with Christians, when our faith through Jesus Christ teaches morality, love, serving and tolerance. Just doesn’t make logical sense to me.

    • Karolyn

      Get your head out of the same book it’s been stuck in. NOT ALL MUSLIMS WANT TO KILL THE INFIDEL!! Do some research; lisen to some American and other Muslims; read information that is out there. They do not all adhere to the same teachings the extremists do. There is a huge Muslim population born here who want to be Americans in every sense of the word; and there is a growing group of young Muslims in the mideast and elsewhere who want to move into the 21st century as moderates. Your kind of rhetoric only creates more terrorists. Think of the 10 year old Muslim-American boy who gets called a terrorist by his classmates. Don’t you think his chances of growing up to be one are greater?

  • Alex

    First, I’m going to say that I agree with Vern. There are some of us who have been educated on many of our current issues for a long time. The trouble the US is in didn’t happen overnight. But the fact is, people are starting to smell the smoke, and they are starting to see the glow of the fire in the close distance. People are starting to educate themselves. Those who know better have been educating those who want to learn. The message is spreading that out of control spending is not something to merely gripe about. It’s a thing that will spell certain disaster for ourselves and our decendants. The message that we need to return to a constitutional government is resonating loudly with people who are starting to realize that oppression has started to show it’s ugly head.

    And now that people are aware of these things, Ron Paul is finally getting a spotlight amongst the people. And as Vern said, the other candidates know that his message is the one that is on the lips and hearts of most concerned Americans. So it behooves them to take his platform.

    Unfortunately, since most of them are frauds, they can only support the platform to a certain degree. They can’t commit to it fully. That’s why Bachman, for example, makes a big deal about repealing “Obama-Care” and “Dodd/Frank,” but makes no mention whatsoever about the Patriot Act she voted for, when it’s a blatant violation of the fourth, fifth, and tenth amendments.

    Now, the idea that Ron Paul is unelectable is a laughable proposition. He’s only unelectable in the media. If anyone happened to be paying attention, half the time they panned to the off site locations for questions, there were Ron Paul signs everywhere. In case anyone happened to also be paying attention … there weren’t signs for anyone else (except one sign I saw for Herman Cain). The media may be trying to play down Ron Paul, but the people know who he is and what he stands for. The media may skew the polls to show him doing worse than he is, but the people cheer Ron Paul in the forums across the internet.

    The things that truly seem to be a difficulty for him directly revolve around ignorant public perceptions. Some say that he’s for legalizing herione. But he’s not. He’s for giving us back our freedom to choose for ourselves, which we had until the The Hague Convention of 1912, which didn’t work to illegalize opiads because of addiction issues, but because of trade problems primarily between Britain and China, and this led to the Harrison Narcotic Act, which was a direct attempt to conform to the Hague Convention. In fact, records show that no real mention of the morality of narcotics came up. The Harrison Narcotic Act was a trade regulating piece of legislation. Through tricky wording in the Act, doctors were imprisoned for dispensing drugs to existing addicts, which led to doctors refusing to supply them. Within six months of the Act being implemented, an entire underworld of drug dealing emerged. Addicts who were formerly able to get their drugs legally, and who were noted to have been socially productive, were embroiled in crime and the less savory aspects of life. But the bottom line is, there were addicts before the narcotics laws, and there were addicts after the narcotics laws. The only difference is that the laws caused crime and infringed upon the liberty of individuals.
    Ron Paul also supports getting out of foreign countries. This doesn’t sit well with a lot of people. But the fact is, we’re broke. We don’t have the finances to continue occupying countries for the sole purpose of imposing our will on them. For those who are concerned about Iran having nuclear weapons, let me point out one very painful truth. The United States is the only country in the history of the world who has ever used nuclear/atomic energy as a weapon against another country. The United States has invaded and oppressed more countries globally than any other country in the world. The United States has one of the highest records of using military force. And we presently have one of the largest nuclear arsenals in the world. As much as I love my country, WE are the warmongers the world should fear and prohibit from having weapons of mass destruction. Iran has an immediate nuclear threat from Israel. They have every reason to want to be able to strike back. And so far as I know, Iran itself has never attacked the United States. Muslim extremists have, as they have also attacked many other countries, but the sovereign nation of Iran has never attacked us. We need to just leave them alone until the day comes that they show aggression towards us. It’s time to bring the troops home and stop the financial hemmorage.

    When you take the time to really weigh the other candidates, what you’ll find, again, is that most of them are frauds. Bachman claims to stand behind the constitution. Yet, she voted for the Patriot Act. She also stands behind the movement to outlaw gay marriage. While marriage itself is an institution of religion (even Satanists get married in a religious ceremony) and out of the scope of the government’s authority, civil unions are not. It is the duty of the federal government to secure the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and to tell people of an alternate lifestyle that they can’t have a civil union is unconstitutional.

    Herman Cain, who seems fixated on reforming the tax code, doesn’t seem to recognize that his 999 plan will be a burden on the people. The idea of a 9% income tax is fine, if unconstitutional. The idea of a 9% federal sales tax is fine too. But the problem comes in when you add the 9% income tax and 9% federal sales tax to the 12% state income tax, the federal medicare tax, the social security tax, 6-9% state sales tax (depending on your state), state property tax, gas tax, luxury tax, and everything else imposed by the respective states. Unless his 999 plan prohibts the states from charging taxes, it just won’t work. It’ll just add additional burdens.

    Romney voted for the assault weapons ban. That, to me, is offensive. FBI statistics have shown that assault weapons are not tool typically used in crime. As some articles I’ve read have pointed out, this is just a stepping stone to outlawing guns altogether. If they tried to do it in one motion, there would be resistance. But to outlaw things that have been made to appear awful in the public perception helps to desensitize the public to the bans. We’re like frogs in a pot of water. Romney also implemented mandatory health care in MA. It’s unconstitutional. There’s just no two ways about it.

    Perry had egg on his face half the night at the debate. He is giving tax money to illegal aliens for college and other services. He is suspicious of a pay to play morality, giving contracts to contributors. He is guilty of mandating innoculations by executive order. He is for the continued aggression in the middle east (which means leaving troops there and continuing the spending of money we don’t have). As Ron Paul pointed out, Perry’s method of administration has caused taxes to go up almost double in Texas. Perry is a waffler. First he’s against Social Security, then he’s for preserving it. The fact is, he says what needs to be said to get the attention from the voting public, but what he does demonstrates him to be a fraud.

    Santorum, while a strong and outgoing candidate, supports continued war. We can’t afford it, and the people of the United States want the troops to come home. Yet, Santorum is so strongly of this particular opinion that it won’t matter what the people want, or whether we can afford it. He’s going to continue it regardless. That’s not what we need in a president.

    Newt … he’s a smart guy. He says a lot of good things. But his history shows that he has behaved like a chameleon over the years, doing what he pleases when he can get away with it, and pretending to alternate dispositions when he can’t. In short, he has no real conviction. However smart he is, he’s a fake.

    Huntsman appears to me to be a strong candidate. I don’t really have a big problem with him. However, I do think his thought to run a fence along the border (which many of the other candidates agree with) is a little unrealistic, and doesn’t really address the problem. The problem is the incentive. If there’s no reason for people to come here illegally, they’ll stop coming. It’s as simple as that. To contrary, Huntsman issued driving cards to illegals, which legitimized them. And I find it more than a little ironic that in the course of actually identifying illegal immigrants, they license them instead of deporting them. We might as well shut down the INS if we aren’t going to deport the ones we find. Instead, we spend our resources deporting doctors and engineers when their visas expire, who came into our country legally and are productive. But the welfare Mexicans and Cubans are given driver’s licenses, free health care, college tuition, etc.

    It’s all just a bunch of crap. Ron Paul is the only real candidate, and people need to realize that. Stop harping on things that are genuinely inconsequential. He wants to fix the problems in this country.

    Ron Paul 2012!

    • JeffH

      Alex, great post! I was once a huge Bachmann fan, along with Ron Paul but my enthusiasm for Bachmann has waned considerably. Newt is probably the savviest politically and I’m really impressed that he would like to keep all the candidates focused on routing Obama out of the WH rather than beating up on each other. I do believe he is a valuable asset to this process. He seems willing to stay in the race and cares less about becoming the GOP candidate. He’s become somewhat of a referee, if you will, and is willing to rebut the MSM and the moderators.

      Ron Paul 2012!

    • Winnie

      Alex, I agree with you. United States is broke and yet it continues to act like money grows on trees. Bring all the military people home and close all the 900 bases. United States has for so long bullied the other countries of the world. The time came on 9/11 when the people should have realized that the Middle East People, except Isrealites, do not want the Americans on their land. US would fight at the first sign of another country putting their military base in any of the states.

      • Alex

        I agree. When UN troops end up stationed on US soil, in my mind it’s time for target practice.

  • Dan az

    Alex
    I’m impressed!Excellent job!Even after all that we will still see that not to many get it!How sad is that?

  • KP

    Ron Paul is electable? He won’t even be nominated, and as third party candidate he stand a proverbal snow balls chance. However, he might siphon off enough votes to help an Obama win. Go all the way, Ron!

    • Alex

      Only a moron who believes the media would say such a thing. I think, in reality, that people like you are the real enemies of the state. But you won’t understand that until the country is disarmed, searched without provocation, imprisoned on accusation alone without due process, subjected to martial law, and ultimately rounded up if you have the gall to speak out with the freedom of speech that will have been taken away from you.

      That’s how it happens, and ignorant buttholes are the ones to blame.

      • Dan az

        Alex
        It’s obvious that your not the same alex that used to be on here.Good to have you among us and keep up the good fight!

        • Alex

          No, I’ve been posting here for a few months. I haven’t actually come across the other alex (small a). Some of the things I’ve had to say, however, have been received, so I assume I’m not too far different than the other person.

          I thought about altering my screen name to reflect that I am someone else, but I thought it might be unnecessarily complicating.

      • KP

        What did I say that resulted in such a personal off the point reply?

        • Alex

          I’m sorry if I was harsh KP, but I’m sick to death of hearing people say that Ron Paul isn’t electable. As he himself pointed out in a public debate when asked that very question, he is the most Republican of all the Republicans running. He is the most conservative of the conservatives running. He is the most consitutional of all the candidates running who claim to be constitutional. His platform is the only platform that is solely for the good of the United States. He doesn’t take money from special interst groups. He is financing his campaign on voluntary contributions.

          Ultimately, the ONLY thing that makes Ron Paul unelectable is people who refuse to vote for him. And running around ignorantly spouting to ignorant people that he’s not electable CREATES the attitude of unelectability for Ron Paul in the eyes of average voters who don’t want to “waste” their vote. But when everyone gets on board to vote for the right person, their electability is assured.

          Besides, we’re only talking primaries at this point. If you DON’T want him to run as an independent, then contribute to getting him the Republican nomination. Then he’ll only be taking the Republican, conservative, and Tea Party votes from Obama. Even if some voters think he is a weak candidate, he’s still a better choice than Obama.

          So don’t be part of the problem. Be part of the solution. Ron Paul is electable. If you love and value this country, stop trying to convince people he isn’t.

  • Karolyn

    FYI – Here’s a response I received from Jim DeMint, one of my senators regarding S. 1310, the Dietary Supplement Labeling Act of 2011. This is the first time I’ve received an email from DeMint, and I must admit I am impressed. Note his ref. to Ron Paul:

    “Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns with S. 1310, the Dietary Supplement Labeling Act of 2011. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.

    As you may know, Senator Durbin (IL) introduced S. 1310, the Dietary Supplement Labeling Act, on June 30th, 2011. This bill amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to require manufacturers of dietary supplements to register dietary supplement products with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and to amend labeling requirements with respect to dietary supplements.

    Unfortunately, in far too many instances the Obama Administration has empowered unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats in efforts to force its preferred policies through the rulemaking process, particularly at the EPA, FCC, and FDA. Unfortunately, S. 1310 adds more burdensome regulation to the supplement industry resulting in rising consumer costs and an atmosphere where businesses are reluctant to invest and grow.

    As a response to excessive regulation and in order to curtail its negative economic impact, I introduced the REINS Act (Regulations from the Executive In Need of Scrutiny) in the 111th Congress. This Congress I am proud to support Senator Rand Paul by co-sponsoring his introduction of the REINS Act for the 112th Congress, S.299.

    Passing the REINS Act would mean that for every new major rule proposed by federal agencies, before it can take effect, it must be approved via a joint resolution passed by both bodies in Congress and signed by the President. A “major rule” is any rule that the administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB,) finds may result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, or significant adverse effects on the economy. Passage of the REINS Act would mean that burdensome attempts at regulation significantly impacting the dietary industry would also face the scrutiny of Congress before taking effect.

    Currently, S. 1310 has been referred to the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. While I am not a member of this committee, please rest assured, I will keep your thoughts in mind should this bill come to the Senate floor for a vote.

    Thank you again for sharing your concerns with me. Please feel free to contact me in the future about any issue important to you or your family. It is an honor to serve you and the people of South Carolina.

    Sincerely,

    Jim DeMint
    United States Senator”

    • JeffH

      K, thanks for sharing. I do believe DeMint is one of the good guys too!

    • Liztalk

      I have a question: Wouldn’t you want to know exactly what substances are in a supplement you might buy? That way you can make a knowledgeable choice whether or not to take the supplement. Or even if the product is worth the price. The company that makes the stuff can put whatever they want in the supplements if they don’t INFORM the consumer what’s in them.

      A libertarian might say that it’s government intrusion into business – to force them to label their ingredients, but I say NOT informing folks what is in a consumable product is allowing business to manipulate people and it becomes BUSINESS intruding on personal lives. INFORMATION is important to be a productive consumer. And there are very few businesses which would VOLUNTARILY list the ingredients in their products. Or if there is a dangerous substance in the product. There has to be a government oversight to MAKE them inform to protect the consumer.

      And if a libertarian says it’s individual responsibility to take the supplement or not, no matter what it contains, and then if the individual gets sick, well that was their choice…. That is false logic, because in this case, the individual was not informed, he was essentially tricked by the product’s manufacturer. And the manufacturer should have some responsibility. So it is proper that we have an entity to oversee that manufacturers in general do their part in responsibility by proper labeling. It looks after the welfare of the people. That’s government responsibility. Government has a role.

      • Karolyn

        There is enough regulation in the supplement industry already. The only reason they are doing this is that the FDA (and congress) are in the pocket of Big Pharma. While smaller companies would be regulated out of business, the big pharmaceutical companies could take their business. Also, the pharms don’t want people to use natural substances to be well because that cuts into their “sickness market.” The supplement industry conducts a “wellness market.” More people get sick from pharmaceuticals than from any supplement. The ratio is off the charts. I bet you also believe that raw milk is dangerous, and it’s good to get the flu shot.

      • Teresa M.

        If you don’t know what’s in it don’t take it. It’s the law of demand. If the consumers themselves demand better labeling then the manufacturers will give it to them. Government intervention is not required only personal responsibility and alas we all know how well that works out,we have zero. Why do it yourself when you can have others do it for you. For example, all the people spouting off the medias propoganda about Ron Paul instead of taking the time to look up a few facts for themselves.

    • Dan az

      Karolyn
      Good job!He sounds like a keeper!There maybe still hope after all!

  • speedle

    Bob says, “Tea Party people are still not ready to face the fact that U.S. militarism, bombing and nation-building is not winning friends in the Mideast.”

    Actually “winning friends in the Mideast” is not only a silly goal, it is patently impossible given the Arab mentality toward all infidels. All I want from them is respect, and the understanding that they will be punished if they do harm to us. Sorry Bob, even Obama has given up on that pipe dream.

    And yes, Ron Paul is unelectable – not because he is void of some excellent philosophical approaches to problems (which is why other candidates “echo” his positions). He is absolutely unelectable because of his approach to foreign affairs – period. Having said that, I love to see him in the debates pontificating on his theories, both good and bad.

    • Alex

      The problem here is that the general gripes about his foreign policies change with each new telling. First they said he wanted to cut our forces, and so the complaint was that he was leave us vulnerable. He clarified that, as did many of his supporters, in explaining that he didn’t want to cut defense spending, just war spending, which are not the same thing. When they stopped bitching about that, they changed to griping about him wanting to leave the middle east alone. People were shouting that we need to have a presence there. But he countered by explaining that it’s costing us billions of dollars, and it isn’t benefitting the United States one bit. Next they gripe because he doesn’t plan to attack and invade Iran in the typical warmongering spirit of United States diplomacy. They shouldn’t have nukes, people cry. But Iran isn’t going to attack us, and other countries like Israel can defend themselves. Israel actually has a superior army to Iran. So it’s a nonpoint issue. Now they complain that he said the muslims attacked us because of our intrusions in their country. While it’s certainly not our FAULT (it’s the FAULT of those who perpetrated the crime), the motivation was obviously not to punish the freedom loving infidel. It was to punish the invading Americans who provide weapons and support to Israel, the muslim enemy, and for keeping troops on holy ground.

      There’s not a damn thing wrong with his foreign policy. In fact, his foreign policy is simply this: We’re spending too much money we don’t have, we aren’t accomplishing anything by being over there, our husbands and sons are getting killed, and it’s not our fight. Bring the troops home. Put that money to better use. Use it to shore up Social Security and FEMA. Use it to help get the budget balanced.

      It’s not like he’s saying that we should pull out, shut down the military, laub a few bombs to get everyone pissed off, and then sit back and wait to be attacked.

  • 45caliber

    For laughs:

    (Feel free to add to it if you like.)

    Politalk – Language used by politicians that sounds like the common
    language but actually has totally different meanings.

    All of us have, at one time or another, listened to politicians. We
    then find out later that they did something other than what we expected
    after listening to them. This is due to the fact that politicians mean
    entirely different things when they speak. Perhaps the following will aid
    in helping to understand what a politician is really saying in Politalk:

    What he said: “No new taxes!”
    What you understood: “Taxes will not go up.”
    What he meant: “We can’t find anything new to tax so we’re raising the
    old ones.”

    What he said: “Taxes will not go up!”
    What you understand: “We shall not raise any taxes!”
    What he meant: “We’ve found a new way to get more taxes.”

    What he said: “A fee is not a tax.”
    What you understand: “A fee is totally different from a tax.”
    What he meant: “If we call it a tax you might not pay it.”

    What he said: “You need a license to do that.”
    What you understand: “We need some way to insure the bad guys don’t cause
    trouble.”
    What he meant: “We’ve found a new way to get tax money from you.”
    Or
    “We need to know what you are doing every moment.”

    What he said: “I will defend your rights to the death!”
    What you understood: “I will never back down from acting as your defense.”
    What he meant: “I will not back down until your death or I get a better
    offer, whichever comes first.”

    What he said: “I love children.”
    What you understand: “I am a nice person because nice people love children.”
    What he meant: “Children can’t vote against me like you adults do.”
    Or
    “I’m a secret pedophile.”

    What he said: “Multi-generational love is okay.”
    What you understand: “There is nothing wrong with an older man loving a younger
    woman.”
    What he meant: “I like little boys.”

    What he said: “I have the best interests of the country (city, state, etc.)
    at heart.”
    What you understand: “I want to do what is best for everyone.”
    What he meant: “The best interests of (whatever) require you to do what
    I say and shut up about it.”

    What he said: “I really want this position to help the (whatever).”
    What you understand: “I really want to look after your best interests.”
    What he meant: “I need this position so I can get the bribe money.”

    What he said: “My opponent is mud slinging.”
    What you understood: “My opponent is telling lies about me.”
    What he meant: “My opponent is telling the truth about me.”

    What he said: “I strongly support … (whatever the minority group wants)”
    What you understood: “I believe in the minority group’s cause.”
    What he meant: “I’ve lost the vote and support of the majority and am getting
    desperate.”

    What he said: “I want to solve the crime problem.”
    What you understood: “I want to reduce crime.”
    What he meant: “My law firm needs more work protecting criminals.”

    What he said: “Too many poor prisoners are spending too much time in jail.”
    What you understand: “The poor prisoners are in jail far longer than needed.”
    What he meant: “My law firm needs more clients.”

    What he said: “We want to make it safer for you and your children.”
    What you understand: “We want to insure you and your children won’t get hurt.”
    What he meant: “We need a better way to control you.”
    Or
    “We need a new source of tax money.”

    What he said: “I want to stop the criminals!”
    What you understand: “I want to get rid of the criminals to keep everyone
    safe.”
    What he meant: “Anyone who might disagree with me is a criminal.”

    What he said: “I want to stop crime.”
    What you understand: “I want to stop criminals from harming you.”
    What he meant: “If you disagree with me, it’s a crime.”

    What he said: “There are too many guns on the streets.”
    What you understood: “I want to make it harder for criminals to get guns.”
    What he meant: “Too many clients are getting killed by their victims.”
    or
    “I want to pass some laws that will favor me and I’m afraid
    some good citizen might object.”

    What he said: “The police is guilty of entrapment!”
    What you understand: “The police framed me.”
    What he meant: “The police caught me.”

    What he said: “The punishment for that crime is too harsh!”
    What you understand: “The punishment doesn’t fit the crime.”
    What he meant: “My (relative) was arrested for that last night.”

    What he said: “The punishment for that crime is too lenient!”
    What you understand: “The punishment doesn’t fit the crime.”
    What he meant: “My (relative) was a victim of that crime last night.”

    What he said: “I never inhaled.”
    What you understand: “I was pretending to find out more about the crowd.”
    What he meant: “I injected, swallowed, etc.”

    What he said: “I’m going on a fact-finding trip.”
    What you understand: “I am needing more information to help make an informed
    decision.”
    What he meant: “I need a free vacation.”

    What he said: “The military needs new (whatever) and I support them.”
    What you understand: “I want to insure we have a strong military.”
    What he meant: “A factory in my district that gives me reelection money
    needs a new market.”

    What he said: “I intend to balance the budget.”
    What you understand: “I want to bring government costs under control.”
    What he meant: “I want to balance the budget just before I get kicked out of
    office so I can screw up the other party.”
    Or
    “The enemy party has a number of good things I want to get
    rid of before they get some good credit.”
    Or
    “Balancing the budget is fine as long as I can still get the
    money to buy votes.”

    What he said: “I realize there are uninformed people in my district against a
    state income tax but you have to understand that there is
    this great untapped source of money we badly need to help our
    state.”
    What you understand: “We badly need more money to build our state for the good
    of all of us.”
    What he meant: “You are wasting your paycheck on food and clothing when I could
    be using it to make sure I get reelected.”

    What he said: “I want to help the people in my district.”
    What you understand: “I’m concerned about the people who elected me.”
    What he meant: “I need to buy some votes before the next election.”

    What he said: “(Whatever) Street is in very bad condition and needs repairs.”
    What you understand: “I’m checking the district’s needs and prioritizing the
    work.”
    What he meant: “I know it’s in bad shape because I live on it.”

    What he said: “This city needs a new park.”
    What you understand: “I care about children’s needs to play.”
    What he meant: “I’ve found some grant money and my brother-in-law needs a job.”

    What he said: “The city vehicles are old and a disgrace!”
    What you understand: “Maintenance costs are too high and no one can work well.”
    What he meant: “My new city-provided car has a scratch on the paint.”

    What he said: “The office furniture is old and unsuitable.”
    What you understand: “The furniture is falling apart.”
    What he meant: “My predecessor bought it and he/she had bad taste.”

    What he said: “I don’t even know that woman accusing me.”
    What you understand: “I didn’t have sex with her like she says.”
    What he meant: “I like sex with strange women.”

    What he said: “I stand behind my constituents.”
    What you understand: “I support my constituents.”
    What he meant: “I’m afraid they would lynch me if I get in front.”
    or
    “I prefer to let them get into trouble first.”

    What he said: “I do more for women than any other man up here!”
    What you understand: “I firmly believe women should have a fair deal.”
    What he meant: “I am God’s gift to women and they owe me.”

    What he said: “We need more money for schools.”
    What you understand: “I’m concerned about our poor schools.”
    What he meant: “We need an excuse for a new tax.”

    What he said: “The latest polls show that I am ahead by 20 points.”
    What you understand: “I’m badly beating my opponent in the election so you
    should vote for me.”
    What he meant: “Most of the people working for me in my office agreed to
    vote for me. We’re afraid to ask anyone else.”

    What he said: “My wife supports me 100%.”
    What you understand: “My wife loves me and believes in me.”
    What he meant: “My wife is willing to forgive anything if she can be First
    Lady.”

    What he said: “Midnight basketball (whatever) will solve the crime problem by
    getting the criminals off the streets.”
    What you understand: “I want to reduce crime and protect you, the victim.”
    What he meant: “Too many of my clients are spending too much time in jail and
    it’s cutting into my profits.”

    What he said: “We’re trying to slow things down.”
    What you understand: “Things are moving too fast through Congress to be given
    proper consideration.”
    What he meant: “We’re trying to stop anyone in the other party from getting any
    good bills passed.”

    What he said: “I want to bridge the gap between Congress, the President, and
    the courts.”
    What you understand: “I want everyone to work together.”
    What he meant: “I want my group to tell everyone else what to do.”

    What he said: “I’m assigning the vice president (or assistant) to handle this.”
    What you understand: “I trust my assistant to do an excellent job.”
    What he meant: “If he gets it right, I get the credit; if he screws up, he gets
    the blame. It’s too hot for me to handle anyway.”

    What he said: “Our job is not to get re-elected, it is to think of the long
    term goals of our country.”
    What you understand: “We need to work together for the good of the country
    even if it doesn’t help us personally.”
    What he meant: “Your job is to make decisions that could get you kicked out
    of office so I won’t take the whole blame.”
    Or
    “I can’t get re-elected, so I want to take all my enemies with
    me.”

    What he said: “It will cost too much money.”
    What you understand: “The government can’t afford this project.”
    What he meant: “My opponent will get too much money for his district and I
    won’t get much for mine.”

    What he said: “My opponent has a conflict of interest in this legislation.”
    What you understand: “My opponent is going to make money if this goes
    through.”
    What he meant: “I need to discredit him any way I can.”

    What he said: “We must have a hearing on this problem.”
    What you understand: “There is a problem that we need to discover the truth
    about.”
    What he meant: “I need some free news coverage to help my next election
    attempt.”

    What he said: “I want to meet with the leaders of (various countries) and
    arrange a peace treaty.”
    What you understand: “I want to do whatever possible to keep peace.”
    What he meant: “I need some free publicity.”

    What he said: “I’m just a poor person at heart, while my opponent is a
    slick talking up-town boy.”
    What you understand: “I’m just like you.”
    What he meant: “I need you to feel sorry for me so you’ll vote for me.”

    What he said: “I support my friends 100%.”
    What you understand: “I support you all the time.”
    What he meant: “I support my friends … but they aren’t my friends if they
    interfere with what I want.”
    Or
    “I support my friends – but my only friends give me money.”

    What he said: “I have been given a mandate from the people when they
    elected me.”
    What you understand: “I intend to do as my voters want.”
    What he meant: “Now that I’m in, I can do what I want.”

    What he said: “Now that I’m here and know all the details, I know and will
    do what is best for my district.”
    What you understand: “There are good reasons that I can’t tell you for me
    voting this way but I am looking out for you.”
    What he meant: “I’m the one making decisions, not you. Shut up.”

    What he said: “No comment.”
    What you understand: “I don’t have anything to say at this time.”
    What he meant: “I can’t say anything now without looking guilty.”

    What he said: “You should vote for the party.”
    What you understand: “The party has a better platform than any individual
    could have.”
    What he meant: “We can’t have these upstarts getting into the office without
    working their way up through the party like I did.”
    or
    “I know we have lousy people this time but we still need to
    beat the other party in the elections.”

    What he said: “We are now defining the issues of this problem.”
    What you understand: “We are trying to figure out all the parts of the
    problem.”
    What he meant: “We are trying to think of a way to cloud the issues so you
    won’t know what’s going on.”

    What he said: “I’ve already answered that question.”
    What you understand: “You are wasting time since that question is answered.”
    What he meant: “I’m not going to answer that question.”

    What he said: “I’m willing to support my opponent if he wins the primary.”
    What you understand: “I am willing to support the party, even if I loose.”
    What he meant: “If he wins, ignore anything bad I said about him.”

    What he said: “I have reviewed the facts and made my decision.”
    What you understand: “After thorough study, this is the best decision for
    all of us.”
    What he meant: “I called my boss and he told me what to do.”
    or
    “This decision is the most likely one to get me reelected.”

    What he said: “Laws must be passed to give minorities more voice in
    government.”
    What you understand: “The minority groups are being mistreated.”
    What he meant: “I can’t get elected unless only my family is allowed to vote.”

    What he said: “It is our duty to establish peace in their country.”
    What you understand: “We need to have peace everywhere.”
    What he meant: “I have a lot of their countrymen in my district.”
    Or
    “I need something to distract you from what I’m doing here.”

    What he said: “Everyone should have an equal right in our country.”
    What you understand: “Everyone is equal.”
    What he meant: “I’ve been paid to help them out.”

    What he said: “We need immigration into the U.S.”
    What you understand: “I believe immigrants can contribute to our life here.”
    What he meant: “I can’t get elected by anyone who grew up here and knows
    me.”

    What he said: “The people of (foreign country) are our friends and neighbors.
    They need our help.”
    What you understand: “I feel sorry for the poor there and want to help them.”
    What he meant: “Their government lobby has paid me a lot of money to give
    them some of your tax money.”

    What he said: “We should always look to the future!”
    What you understand: “We should be progressive and move forward.”
    What he meant: “I don’t want you to notice that we’ve already made this
    mistake before and it didn’t work then either.”

    What he said: “We are going to work with their government to clean up this
    problem.”
    What you understand: “We are partners with them to solve a serious problem.”
    What he meant: “We are going to pay them ten times what the job is worth so
    their relatives can draw big bucks without working.”

    What he said: “We are going to act as peacemaker between these two warring
    factions.”
    What you understand: “We are concerned about peace in the world and have
    the experience to calm everyone down.”
    What he meant: “We are willing to bribe both sides so we can get the
    reputation of being a world power.”

    What he said: “We need to recognize this country as allies/friends. We
    have been enemies too long.”
    What you understand: “We need to settle our differences at long last.”
    What he meant: “Their government is willing to give me part of the foreign
    aid we will be required to give them if I push this through.”

    What he said: “We have a treaty with them and must follow it.”
    What you understand: “We have no choice but to follow a treaty, good or bad.”
    What he meant: “The treaty gives me more power in Washington than our laws
    do so you must follow it.”

    What he said: “As a member of the UN, we must follow its instructions and
    support them.”
    What you understand: “We swore an oath to support them and therefore must
    do it.”
    What he meant: “Their regulations give me more power than the Constitution
    does, and this is the only way I can see to get around it.”

    What he said: “Foreign aid is necessary to establish a friendship with each
    country.”
    What you understand: “We want to help others who need help.”
    What he meant: “We can’t do anything without bribing them.”

    What he said: “I want to cut all government red tape.”
    What you understand: “I want to make it easier for the citizens to
    deal with the government.”
    What he meant: “I want to cut the red tape – lengthwise.”

    What he said: “I have found a place in another state (country) to dispose of
    our waste.”
    What you understand: “I have found someone who is willing to get rid of our
    waste for us.”
    What he meant: “I’ve found some sucker to take it so I don’t have to spend
    my money to dispose of it properly.”

    What he said: “We have finalized and signed a great new trade treaty that
    binds both countries in the future.”
    What you understand: “We now have a favorable trade treaty that will provide
    more jobs in the United States.”
    What he meant: “We were paid by their government to make sure their people
    will have some place to dump their surplus goods.”

    What he said: “We want to reinvent government.”
    What you understand: “We want to make government easier and better for the
    people.”
    What he meant: “We want to get rid of all the laws that make us responsible
    to the people so we can do what we want.”

    What he said: “We are concerned about the environment and want to improve it.”
    What you understand: “We want to save the world for our children.”
    What he meant: “Bend over. We found a new reason to raise taxes.”

    What he said: “We want to teach our children honesty in schools.”
    What you understand: “We want to insure that our children will abhor crime.”
    What he meant: “We want to teach the children to inform on parents, siblings,
    etc. so we can control the people better.”

    What he said: “We want to teach our children teamwork.”
    What you understand: “We want to teach our children to work together and be
    friends.”
    What he meant: “We need to encourage children to join gangs since we need a
    bigger crime rate to be able to raise taxes and pass laws
    you won’t like.”

    What he said: “We want to teach our children to accept minorities and
    alternate lifestyles.”
    What you understand: “We want our children taught to accept everyone equally.”
    What he meant: “I’m kinky.”

    What he said: “Guns kill people and should be banned.”
    What you understand: “We want to ban guns to protect you.”
    What he meant: “We want to protect the poor criminals since they are the
    source of income for all lawyers.”

    What he said: “Guns kill people and should be banned.”
    What you understand: “We want to ban guns to protect you.”
    What he meant: “We want to ban guns to protect us from you when we make
    stupid laws that give us power.”

    What he said: “We want to provide computers for all schools.”
    What you understand: “We want to make sure all our children are able to
    function in a computer world.”
    What he meant: “We found a new way to raise taxes without you knowing it.”

    What he said: “We are doing all this for you.”
    What you understand: “We are concerned about you and have your best interests
    at heart.”
    With he meant: “We are doing all this to you … and are doing this for us.”

    What he said: “My opponent only staged that for political reasons.”
    What you understand: “My opponent is lying about his reasons for doing what he
    did and is a contemptible person for doing it.”
    What he meant: “I should have done that first.”

    What he said: “We have given our word and must abide by it.”
    What you understand: “As Americans, we are honest and trustworthy people,
    even if it hurts us.”
    What he meant: “Shut up. I’m the leader and you’ll do things my way.”
    (Which is an alternate answer to every other question above.)

    • 45caliber

      Sorry, didn’t realize it was this long.

      • Dan az

        45 :) and you want anybody to add to that? :)I cant stop laughing!!!!!

  • Practical

    The voting public is not on the same page; not even in the same book. But it is poised to move a bit in a conservative direction.

    Any Republican candidate would move us needfully to the right; and any Republican candidate (except Ron Paul)has an excellent chance to defeat Pres. Obahma. We NEED those independent votes in order to dethrone Obahma. If you aren’t looking at that goal; and in a practical way, you aren’t serious about changing the country.

    It is a simple fact that the public attitude will not tolerate a dramatic shift from where it resides. Therefore, Ron Paul is not electable.

    Obahma fooled the public with a huge assist from the media, and came to power. But he over played his hand, and has governed radically to the left; and spawned the tea party as the counter balance. Conservatives can take the next election cycle (as they did in 2010); but they NEED the middle road voters; period.

    Middle America is frustrated with a broken government. We need to be patient in moving the ‘middle America’ to the right. It took 40 years to get in this condition (and on the brink); and the adjustment the right will take time.

    • Dan az

      pratical?
      “It is a simple fact that the public attitude will not tolerate a dramatic shift from where it resides. Therefore, Ron Paul is not electable.”Really and you believe that?You are the problem if you haven’t figured out by now that they are just a two headed coin with the same agenda.Come on Really you don’t sound like your that stupid to believe that any republican is any different and just because some one stands for exactly what the constitution says he is a wacko.WOW I’m glad your of the minority!

      • Practical

        Dear Dan,
        I stand by my premise; not enough conservatives to outright win an election without the votes of the republicrats who don’t vote an ideology.

        Ron Paul scares them (and all but the ultra-conservatives), and he has no chance. Even Perry could shake the independent seniors with his bravato regarding the social security.

        I’d rather have a half a full conservative than none; and I’d take any of the Republican field over Obahma; except Ron Paul. But I don’t need to worry about that; he is unelectable.

        • AnhydrousBob

          If the only candidate that actually stands for the constitution is un-electable, we are observing the demise of the Republic.

          By your logic, you would actually vote for Obama to keep Marx (Karl – not one of the brothers) from getting elected, rather than vote for Jefferson – even if that meant a write in. Sad.

          I will only vote for Paul, and there are more than you would like to know that will do the same.

          So here is a twist on your logic. If the Repubs dont nominate Paul, they are ensuring that Obama gets in.

          • Practical

            Anhydrouse Bob,
            A very thoughtful comment. I’m more hopefull. I don’t believe the lesser of two evils seals our fate (in this case Romney or other Repubs are FAR the less evil choice than Obahma); as long as we keep trending towards the constitution in each election cycle. As you know, the trending (and now leaping) to this point has been in the other direction – and I think four more years of Obahma could be our demise.

            At this point, I’m not into the all or nothing game. I think the current slate of Repub candidates are starkly different than the radically liberal Obahma; and can make a positive difference.

            I admire the loyalty to principles and Paul Ryan; but a principled, nonpractical vote for Paul as a write in or a third, will just make the margin thinner; and yes, we would then possible get Obahma, and our demise.

            I enjoyed your comment.

  • Scott D

    My big problem with R.Paul Is he needs to get right with illegal immigration and also learn that good fences make good neighbors.

    • Dan az

      Scott
      “he needs to get right with illegal immigration ”
      What exactly dose that mean?He believes we need to close the borders and put our troops on them to protect them.Do you not want the same thing?I’m not sure what your saying!The constitution says we need to protect our citizens from enemies foreign and from with in.So you don’t think that will be one of his first policies?I just hope he goes after the within first then we could ship them off to.

    • Alex

      My big problem with Scott D is he needs to get right with R. Paul’s actual policies on illegal immigration.

  • bob wire

    I didn’t see it all, but what I seen, I was disappointed with.

    Too much stumping, too much hypothetical BS.

    PERRY bragging about all the jobs he created that requires wearing a paper hat and no one called him out on it.

    I think Perry is the one ruined it for me,~ and all the ditto heads sounding off in mindless praise.

    Ron Paul had the message but has a poor delivery style. Too old to learn, too old to change I fear. I didn’t like the way he got cut off, it was rude and in poor forum. I wanted him to do something about it, but when you are flying around with a bunch of turkeys it’s hard to soar with the eagles. So You become a turkey too, regardless what you say or do. You become a “turkey” via proximity and company. The harder you fight to not be a turkey, the bigger turkey you appear. So I guess Ron Paul played it well. He didn’t compromise himself.

    Who’s too say, who would be the solid “leader” in the bunch? They are all able “administrators” of various degrees.

    My conclusion? The GOP (whoever that might truly be, it’s no more clearer today then 8 years ago) thinks Perry is the best choice to gain control of the white house in 2012.

    • Alex

      The thing that irritates me the most about Perry is that he is the media darling. That man spent so much time with egg on his face at the debate, I thought he was turning into an omlette. Of all the candidates, Bachman actually had the best showing and made the most improvement based on the previous debate.

      But the media says, “I think Perry was the clear winner tonight,” and I was like, “You’ve got to be f*cking kidding me!”

      If Perry were just a stooge, like Santorum, who doesn’t seem to have any chance at all in this specific election, I wouldn’t care. Let his errors drive him to the bottom. But instead, Perry is being vaulted to the top by the media, despite his deceptions and duplicity.

  • Dan az

    I could care less who the GOP picks I’m still voting for Ron Paul and my conscience will be clear and the rest can get what they deserve.

  • r.p.

    Good article. They are so obvious it’s funny.

  • don bosch

    I am a Canadian observer, with a Father who resides in Florida. For more than 12 years now, I have been looking profoundly into the workings of the U.S” gov’t and its politics. IO happened upon Ron Paul about 10 years ago, and he tickled my curiousity. Suffice it to say, that after a while, I fully understood that this man was no politician, but a caring individual who is simply unable to be bought.
    This man has a level of integrity that I have rarely seen in any public servant. I fully suspect that if all the people who think they know his views actually picked up a few of his books and read them, these people would rapidly realize that this individual is a perfect symbol of what made America a great country once. A man of principle who refuses to cater to lobbyists, who does not vote on anything that could go against the document that he swore he would protect. People simoply do not take the time to fully understans his positions, and due to the MSM not allowing him sufficient voice to actually fully explain his positions, his words and being misconstrued, continually so.

    At this juncture in the history of the United States ofd America, it is imperative that the people be very careful who they elcet going forward, and I can only urge mny good neighbours to the south to spend more time learing about their candidates, all of them,to better arm themselves with the correct knowledge of all the positions of all the candidates. When one invests in a company, one spends (or one should do so) a lot of time doing due diligence before making a decision. This same time should apply when voting for a candidate.

    I have many many friends, worldwide who see Ron Päul as the only candidate who actually speaks the truth and has done so for as long as he has been around. One simply truth remains………….if you cannot find any dirt on a person and that person continues to speak the same way and the same tune over 25 years, then perhaps at some point, you have to agree that this person may be the real thing and that this person might be correct in his positions. To date, he has clearly predicted exactly what would happen with the U.S. Many times over, indeed.

    His foreign policy oozes logic……..I cannot understand what people do not get about it? It make perfect sense. The problem here is that Americans have been led to believe that the 3 Million jobs in the military industrial complex are more important than the future of their children. They have been led to believe that if you force your “freedom and democracy ” onto others, things will be better all-round. Unfortunately, they are mistaken. Freedom includes allowing people to make mistakes and taking responsibility for them. Like when you tell your kids “don’t do that”, and they will do it anyway. They need to learn for themselves. That requires time. If what the U.S. believes is the best way to be, actually is, them time will make it so, without the need to bankrupt the country in the process and make the rest of the world see the U.S. as a bully. Let the world live and allow it time to move in the direction that it wishes to.

    The american people are generous and kind, of that there is no doubt. Let us never forgte to make the distinction that they do NOT reflect at all times what their leaders wish to portray. For that, I am happy because as a Canadian, I truly appreciate my American friends.

    I can only hope that this time around, more take the time to actually do some real DD on their own, as opposed to listening to what the MSM has to say. I think that this is the most appropriate time in the U.S’s history to actually take the time to inform yourselves. There is so much at stake right now. Much more than many of you realize.

    Consider this……once you have given a person a handout……….it becomes something they take for granted. When more than 50% of people take the handouts for granted, your liberty is gone forever. The basis of your freedom and liberty lies in the ability of your people to take responsibility for their owns lives. Find the balance, find the strength to combat the ease of accepting that gov’t makes your decisions for you. This requires character……….and strength. That was what America once had. Seems to me like too many gave up and just figured…..ach, what the hell….it is easier when they do it for me. If this is the case, then I wish you all well with your new-found enslavement. Make sure your children get used to being told how to live, what to say and what to eat, though. The corporations will take care of your kids real nice, I am sure………..(NOT)

    If this is not the case then perhaps the time has come to educate yourselves and your neighbours as to who the only person is who actually has never lied to you and who is going to go to bat for you, based on his perfect record with regards ot the only document that protects you as an American…….your constitution.

    RP is loved outside the U.S. and has a huge level of support in Europe. You guys should clone him………..and put one of him in each state………just to make sure the establishment doesn’t take you back to this mess you are now in.

    Good luck to y’all!

    • Dan az

      Don
      Thanks for that,I hope you stick around we could sure use the help here.As you see its like banging our heads against the wall everyday here with the progs and libs.They just refuse to open there eyes.The biggest problem believe it or not is the rep.they think they will just waste their votes so they will just keep voting in the rhinos and lining their pockets.They are far worse than the libs.I think they just want the country to dissolve.
      Everything is backwards I don’t get it.We need people that can see the facts and are not either rep or dem or lib or prog to help explain that we can fix the mess that we are all in if we just open our eyes and do a little research and see that there is only one choice.And I’m afraid it maybe our last chance.Some one from the outside needs to intervene with some common sense I’m sure because it also effects all of you.Thanks

  • Jim C.

    Ron Paul has it right… But most people won’t vote for him, because he’s not good looking enough. Sad reflection on our country.

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.