Ron Paul’s So-Called “Revolution”

ron paul revolution signAll over the Phoenix area there have been signs popping up that proclaiming "Ron Paul Revolution."  Craftily, the letters E,V,O, and L in revolution are backwards and in red in order to spell "love."  Meanwhile on the Internet, Ron Paul devotees have been inserting his name whenever and wherever they can: Digg, Facebook, MySpace, YouTube, etc.

For those of you who don’t know who Ron Paul is, he’s a Republican House Representative from Texas who is trying to run for President.  According to his web site, he is the "leading advocate for freedom in our nation’s capital" and "tirelessly works for limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies."  Furthermore, he "never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution."

Sounds pretty good, right? Freedom?  I like that.  Low taxes?  Sound monetary policies?  Those are good things, right?

Don’t believe the hype.

I find it amusing that the Ron Paul signs highlight the word "love,"  It makes him sound very compassionate, doesn’t it? 

Again, don’t believe the hype.

Here’s a few of the Ron Paul’s stances on the issues.  You decide how compassionate they sound.

Ron Paul is:

  • Against Universal Heathcare;
  • Against gay marriage;
  • Against a woman’s right to choose (Abortion Rights);
  • Against embryonic stem cell research;
  • Against the Kyoto Treaty on the environment;
  • Against a minimum wage increase;
  • Against a path to citizenship for illegals;
  • Against gun purchase background checks;
  • Against an assault weapons ban;
  • Against "No Child Left Behind";
  • Against Internet neutrality;
  • For Alaska National Wildlife Reserve oil drilling;

How is this a "revolution?"  It sounds like a lot more of the same to me.

63 Responses to Ron Paul’s So-Called “Revolution”

  1. Buckwheat says:


    I think you need to do a little more research into Dr. Paul’s positions.

    Just to take a couple of your examples above: Paul is against *any form* of government regulation of the Internet. The “Net Neutrality Act” is an Orwellian-named attempt to regulate the internet so Paul voted against it. Same with “No Child Left Behind”: Paul believes that government intrusion has lowered the quality of our education system by adding federal bureaucratic layers to it. He’s right.

    Do some more research, Scott — you’ll see that this really is a revolution. And Dr. Paul’s going to win.

  2. bret says:

    eh, Scott – basically all your “against” positions could be summed up as “Against Federal Government Interference In Your Life.”

    Which, by implication, makes you “For More Federal Government Interference In Your Life Because You Are Obviously Not Competent Enough To Run It Yourself.”

    Kinda sad, don’t you think?

  3. Andy says:

    Considering that he professes to strictly follow the Constitution, I could see why he would have some of those positions. But others, based on this Constitutional philosophy, I don’t follow. Banning stem cell research? Banning gay marriage?

  4. bret says:

    Oh and nice gay porn on the sidebar, haha.

  5. Andy says:

    Ha. And just like that they’ve found you.

  6. bret says:

    Andy – he’s not for banning anything, he is just not in favor of the Federal government taking over that stuff. Which is the Constitutionalist position!

  7. Andy says:

    So would he allow further stem cell research? If not, wouldn’t that be increased federal interference? Would he allow gay marriage? If not, wouldn’t that be increased federal interference?
    I understand that he opposes abortion and would presumably prefer the states rule on such issues. In such case, are we just trading federal interference for state interference? How is that so much better?

  8. Scott says:

    Wow. The Ron Paul supporters showed up in record time.

    It seems they watch Technorati pretty close for anything tagged “Ron Paul” so they can quickly respond to any dissent.

    I stand by what I said. I did research his positions. Buckwheat, your description of Net Neutrality is awfully biased. It merely means that companies that provide the access and backbone of the Internet cannot charge websites for “priority” traffic. That is they can’t take money from Microsoft to make sure that their crappy Windows Live search loads more quickly than Google or Yahoo.

  9. Scott says:


    Yeah, that makes sense: Because I’m not 100% for Ron Paul’s position on government interference, I must be *completely* for the exact opposite. There is no midpoint what-so-ever.

    I suppose you also believe if you don’t support the war, you hate the troops.

  10. Jason says:

    State interference is the prerogative of the states as guaranteed by the 10th ammendment.

    What is not expressly permitted of the federal gov’t is prohibited.

    The states’ interference could be challenged constitutionally if it infringed on protected liberties etc. but it is surely true that the federal gov’t has no standing.

    A perfectly constitutional position.

  11. Alexia says:

    Actually, you’re wrong on just about everything you wrote. He’s actually the only candidate that supports tossing out “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” He would give gay marriage exactly the same government “approval” that he would give straight marraige, which is none. He does not think that the government should decide who should get married.

    It’s all about individual rights, not group rights.

    He is against the government passing any laws about the internet, because he wants the market to work it out. Whenever the government gets involved, it undermines competition, and inevitably leads to corruption. Let the consumers decide. Once you start legislating it, it will only get worse and more complicated.

    He would allow stem cell research, but he wouldn’t fund any research on a federal level. Does the Constitution say that the government should fund medical research (and then hand the patents off to a private firm?) Uh, no.

    And for the record, I search Google’s Blog Search for information about Ron Paul, not Technorati.

  12. Tony Angelo says:

    * Against Universal Heathcare;

    As an MD Ron Paul treated underprivileged patients for free or on a sliding scale. Universal Healthcare means government and large HMOs will be managing this beast: less competition, regulating the supply of health care, more price fixing, and inefficient and sloppy work. There are alternatives that can provide affordable and free healthcare to underprivileged Americans that will not stifle the market.

    * Against gay marriage;

    But not opposed to equal rights, and certainly opposed to federal government of such.

    * Against a woman’s right to choose (Abortion Rights);

    Despite this being a moot point ina presidential campaign because only the S. Court can overturn Roe v. Wade, he is opposed to federal government getting involved. State and local governments need to regulate this… fight this issue there.

    * Against embryonic stem cell research;

    Opposes federal funding for all research. Why should the government subsidize research that the pharma companies will make billions on? As an MD, he loves stem cells though and sees great promises. Note that you don’t need embryos to acquire stem cells.

    * Against the Kyoto Treaty on the environment;

    Permanent treaties with other nations erodes our sovereignty. There are free and open market solutions.

    * Against a minimum wage increase;

    Minimum wage increases are only necessary because of a faulty economy. This is a band-aid to a much larger problem that needs fixing.

    I don’t have time for the rest, but I hope you change your mind. Everytime you ask (or allow) the Federal Government to take care of you or to protect you, the more you ask them to take away your rights. Furthermore, our a bloated government such as ours cannot be reasonably expected to manage the programs your talking about efficiently and effectively.

  13. Ryan says:

    *grins* Heh, took the words right out of my mouth Tony.

  14. rickdog says:

    Paul’s one of those who wants to shrink the federal government so it can be drowned in the bathtub. Whenever regulations are removed at a national level, the rich and powerful as well as the criminal take control. This happened in the late 19th century and leading up to the great depression and it’s happening now. Federal regulations are good if it’s done benevolently, which our current “regime” certainly is not. The fix is to not get rid of the fed but to make it into a force that actually serves the people, as did FDR and as many European countries do now. FDR beat back the ravages of the libertarian mind-think and brought the middle class to the prominent role which is required for a free democracy, all done through federal regulation. Don’t believe the libertarian hype, Ayn Rand was wrong, wrong, wrong. If you want to live in a fascistic society controlled by the new Robber Barons, then vote for Paul and his ilk.

  15. EEkman says:

    Just as an fyi Scott,

    Yes we Ron Paul supporters do rush out of the woodwork when blogs show up on google. Notice how Tony, and others responded to you in a reasoned academic manner backed up by facts. Now go to a site like DailyKos and peruse some of their diaries, youll notice far more ad hominem personal attacks, negative commenting and emotional bias.

    The effect a great leader like Paul has on us is refreshing. He is honest, does not pander and does not resort to name calling of his opponents and thus his supporters take that example to heart. Can this possibly be a bad thing?

  16. joshuabrucel says:

    Are you a statist? do you like the war on drugs? do you like the iraq war? I am a liberal who is fleeing big brother to vote for Paul.

    Here are the 10 measures the proletariat will use to bring about the full realization of the communist utopian dream, once they have the political power:

    Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
    A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
    Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
    Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
    Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
    Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
    Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
    Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
    Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
    Free education for all children in public schools. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.

  17. Karl says:

    A complete lie about Gay marriage. Ron Paul says (on candidates@google video) people are free to associate and call things whatever they want, the federal govt has no power to give rights to groups. He wants to end the drug war and believes people are free to use their own lives wisely or unwisely. (As long as they don’t hurt others).

    I liked how you put “No Child Left Behind” right next to “net neutrality”. Sounds great, and yet what a complete disaster.

    I have watched internet speeds increase 100 fold and prices drop so we are watching LIVE VIDEO with bandwidth to spare. Yes, now please lets now have the government intervene, regulate, and tax and make things better like they have in health care, education, and housing. What a joke.

    A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take it all away.

  18. Karl says:

    Rickdog, even Ben Bernanke admits the Fed caused the great depression. Of course he thinks he will be much better and not let it happen on his watch. (Don’t they ALL!) Yeah right. The liberals rallying cry – things always fail because there JUST WASN’T ENOUGH GOVERNMENT. Yes, the great depression lasted until WWII because the FEDERAL RESERVE and FDR just DIDN’T DO ENOUGH MANAGING OF THE ECONOMY FOR 10 YEARS. How long can critically thinking people keep drinking that koolaid?

  19. Diane says:

    I wish the Ron Paul supporters would have “rushed out” to the Flight 93 memorial site in Shanksville Pennsylvania recently (this weekend) and prevented the distasteful display of Ron Paul bumper stickers that are now stuck all over the memorial.

    Totally irresponsible and inappropriate, no matter what your politics.

  20. Buckwheat says:

    “Buckwheat, your description of Net Neutrality is awfully biased.”

    Scott, you may want to take a look at Dr. Paul’s talk at Google from a few weeks ago. It’s pretty long but you’ll find detailed answers to most of your technology questions there (the Google people were obviously interested in that subject…). Here’s a link:

  21. Buckwheat says:

    PS Scott — I use the Google Blog Search to find out who’s talking about Dr. Paul. I think it’s better than technorati.

  22. Paul Eres says:

    Did you consider that Ron Paul supporters don’t “find” you and spam you with comments, but that much of your regular readership supports Ron Paul?

  23. Adam says:

    Have you heard about abolishing the Income tax? Taking control of the U.S. Treasury from the Federal Reserve? Abolishing U.S. interventionism in foreing countries as well as our lives? Killing the patriot Act? legalizing marijuana? etc etc? Or are you that dense?

  24. Buckwheat says:

    Hey Ron Paul fans: let’s remember to be courteous, informative, and non-adversarial when debating on blog comment sections. We have the ideas on our side and therefore don’t need to be anything but polite and factual.

  25. Paul Eres says:

    Oh, and another thing: sure, RP is against federal recognition of gay marriage — but he’s also against federal recognition of straight marriage! He thinks that the government should have nothing to do with regulating marriage. I think that’s a sensible position. No government regulation of marriage, of any form. He’d even allow polygamy.

  26. goldenequity says:

    Hi Scott….. gee you REALLY stepped in it didn’t you?
    Ummmmm….that’s ok….I voted for Bush twice.
    I hate myself sometimes for being so gullible…. the
    media is pretty powerful stuff… especially talk radio.

    I didn’t unwash my brain until I got totally disgusted with
    ALL of them. I realized it was just the same SHI* in two
    different piles every election and the media is just more piles.

    Do Your Own Homework

    A local Iowa talk host, Jan Michaelson of WHO news talk radio has been handling the latest supporter focus in Des Moines Iowa. In one afternoon/evening….they documented over 17,000 server requests to download the broadcast coverage concerning Ron Paul.

    17,000 requests One Day!
    Listen HERE

    http://www.ronpaulaudio has recorded over 60,000 server requests on it’s website that’s only been online for 1 MONTH!
    (I know….I’m the host!)

    Let’s start talking about EXPONENTIAL CURVES and more than 500 Days left before the 2008 Election.

    These people have lifted their minds away from the “media trough” long enough to ask one simple question:

    Who IS Ron Paul?
    Why would he get this much support?

    Do your own homework.

    NOBODY explains Ron Paul
    BETTER than Ron Paul himself!

    Here is an interactive audio archive of
    Ron Paul speeches and interviews as a resource in chronological

  27. Scott says:


    Thank you for advocating courteous discourse. I was accused on Digg of not allowing any viewpoint but my own, but if that were true, I would have deleted all your comments. I appreciate those of you who have come here to set the record straight. I still don’t agree with Ron Paul’s ideas on things, but that is MY opinion.

    The points all of you supporters have been making makes it sound like Ron Paul is wading deep into Libertarian country. I appreciate the points you make, but again, I don’t agree with them all.

    I personally think that the concept of “State’s rights” on every issue is outdated. Take gay marriage. As many of you have discerned, I am gay. I have a partner of over eleven years. Let’s say my state decides to legalize gay marriage as from what I gather from your comments, Ron Paul thinks it should be a states’ rights issue. I marry my partner in my state and enjoy the benefits of marriage. But what about federally? Am I able to claim “married” on my tax return? Then let’s say my job wants me to transfer to a state where gay marriage has been banned. If I move there, am I suddenly not married to my partner anymore? This issue is why I believe that some policies need to be decided at a national level.

    Also, some of Ron Paul’s policies, esp. on open trade, seem to favor large corporations. I think corporations have grown way too powerful in today’s society and political realm. I am against giving them any more power.

    As for the Kyoto treaty, I don’t think signing it weakens our nation’s sovereignty. That’s my opinion.

    As for embryonic stem-cell research, I DO think the government should encourage and support research in promising areas such as this, alternative fuels, etc. It will help our nation stay on the forefront of technology. Left alone to corporations to develop, who knows what can happen? Haliburton has already proven that corporations have no allegiance to the U.S.

    The Net Neutrality debate is one I’ll save for another day. I’ll just say I’m for it, but I’ll go into it more in a future blog post.

    Thank you all for your comments even though we may not agree on every issue.

  28. Scott says:

    “He’d even allow polygamy.

    That does not strengthen Paul’s position on marriage in my mind. If you saw the horrible abuses polygamy is causing in towns like Colorado City on the Arizona/Utah border, you might reconsider. Young girls are often forced into marriages that in effect are statutory rape.

  29. Scott says:

    P.S. While I really appreciate the Ron Paul fans who are remaining courteous and polite as they leave comments, I’m curious why so many of you are leaving fake e-mail addresses when you leave comments. Not a big deal, but it seems like if you really believe in something, you wouldn’t be afraid to leave your real name or e-mail address.

  30. Scott says:

    “www.ronpaulaudio has recorded over 60,000 server requests on it’s website that’s only been online for 1 MONTH! (I know….I’m the host!)”

    I went to your site prior to writing my blog post. I’m sure I counted as a “hit” or “server request,” but I was not there because I was a supporter.

  31. Janie says:


    Marraige licenses have ALWAYS been issued by the State!
    They have NEVER been issued by the Federal Government,
    you stupid idiot!!!

  32. Scott says:

    Marraige licenses have ALWAYS been issued by the State! They have NEVER been issued by the Federal Government, you stupid idiot!!!


    I know that, but had you bothered to read the thread, you’d understand my point. Currently each state honors each other’s marriage licenses, but with gay marriage that may not be the case.

    P.S.  I may be an idiot, but at least I can spell marriage.

  33. rightcoast says:

    Janie, you are right in that States handle marriage and always have, and lacking a Constitutional amendment to mandate hetro-only marriage, which Rep. Paul does not support, the federal government is forced to recognize the union.

    That said, real classy Janie. Your family would be pretty proud I bet.

    I read your post Scott, and disagree with you on pretty much all fronts. That’s OK though. Every coin needs two sides. I’ll spare you the viewpoint breakdown, since it probably won’t win you over anyway. Hopefully you can start to think a little more like my brother though, who I have been winning over. He is even a gay man with a Ron Paul t-shirt.
    (Not saying much considering Log Cabin Republicans toe the party line, but I assure you, he is not that)

    You win the thread with the comment about being able to spell marriage. I may not agree with you, but at least you are funny and smart. More than I can say for most people I come across, both IRL and online.

  34. Scott-O-Rama says:

    Thank you rightcoast-

    I enjoy opposing viewpoints when they are polite and classy like yours. You are a good representative for your cause.

  35. Buckwheat says:


    I don’t leave my real name or e-mail because I wish to remain anonymous, no real other reason.

    I have several gay friends and three of them are voting for Ron Paul. One of those three donated money, and he had never donated money to a political campaign before. See Ron Paul’s Google talk I cited above for more on gay issues, a gay Google employee asks a specific question about them in the Q & A at the end.

    Ron Paul’s basic position, on gay issues as on most other things: do what you like, but don’t expect the government to fund you or your worldview (or Ron Paul’s worldview) on this topic, and don’t hurt anyone else.

    Sounds pretty good, yeah?

  36. HEY! I just noticed that your blog was active again after s o o o o long. Welcome Back.

    And thanks for summarizing the various political stands of Ron Paul. He’s become far too popular with a certain particularly shallow faction of Libertarians, and I’ve had a hard time communicating to them what was wrong about supporting him. This list will help.

  37. Dempsey says:

    Scott, to say that states rights on every issue is outdated, is analogous to saying that the constitution of our nation is outdated.

    To have strict federal control is to have absolute control on everything we do and say. This as you may realize is known as central planning. Personally, I prefer the “outdated” mode of freedom as opposed to a bloated, inefficient form of national tyranny.

    Ron Paul 2008!


  38. Paul says:

    Okay, with this comment, I know the namecalling will begin. I am against illegals in this country. You call them illegals and that is what I call them. Since when do we condone and encourage the breaking of laws? There are so many immigrants that did do it right. Our greatgrandparents came into this country legally, worked hard, contributed to society, learned the language and paid taxes. Now, they sneak into this country and sign themselves up for welfare and expect a free ride. This at the expense of the American taxpayer. Of course, in this touchy politcal climate, you dare object, then the namecalling begins. You are immediately called a racist. I am happy to agree with Ron Paul on this issue.

  39. vuboq says:

    Thanks for highlighting even more reasons why I won’t ever vote Republican, Scott (and many interesting commenters).

  40. Scott-O-Rama says:


    I’m not going to call you a racist based on your comment. A lot of non-racists folks feel as you do. I’m curious though, what state do you live in?

    I’m in Phoenix, Arizona, and while I really don’t like people entering our country illegally, I realize that it’s impractical to think we are going to be able to deport them all. Right or wrong, a good portion of our economy here in Arizona depends on them.

    I don’t know the solution to the issue; I wish I did. I think we need some creative and compassionate thinking on this one.

  41. Scott-O-Rama says:

    Ron Paul’s basic position, on gay issues as on most other things: do what you like, but don’t expect the government to fund you or your worldview (or Ron Paul’s worldview) on this topic, and don’t hurt anyone else.


    It’s better than a Constitutional ban against it, but I still worry if every state has their own rules on gay marriage vs. civil unions vs. no marriage for gays at all. I think there needs to be a national standard on the issue.

  42. Scott-O-Rama says:

    Scott, to say that states rights on every issue is outdated, is analogous to saying that the constitution of our nation is outdated.


    I didn’t mean that every issue should be turned over to the federal government although what I wrote in the previous comments may have sounded that way.

    What I meant is that there are some issues like gay marriage where a national standard would probably be best. From what I’m gathering by the comments here and the websites you all have directed me to is that Ron Paul would prefer to leave the issue up to the states. That philosophy may have worked better 50 to 100 years ago when people moved around between states less.

    As I asked in my example in a previous comment, what if my partner and I get married in the state where we live (assuming it allows gay marriage), but that fate dictates that we need to move to another state where gay marriage is not recognized. The states have always honored each others’ marriage licenses up until gay marriage became an issue. Would my partner and I no longer be married? What if we were traveling to a state that had no gay partner rights and one of us was injured and taken to the hospital? Would the marriage from the state I live in be valid to allow me to visit him in the hospital emergency room, or would I have no rights what-so-ever because of that state’s laws?

  43. Barry Day says:

    Scott-O-Rama: I’d encourage you to ask the broader question about marriage, and the Federal government’s role in it. Why does the Federal government need to know, or care, anything about your marital status? Well, besides the income tax? If we eliminate the income tax, I can’t think of a good reason for the Federal government to care about it. Just because China’s national government knows and enforces rules regarding the marital (and childbearing, for that matter) status of its citizens doesn’t mean that it’s a good thing for a country founded on the concept of individual liberty.

    With respect to the States’ recognition of gay marriage, you raise a good question with the issue of reciprocity among states. It seems, though, that again it’s appropriate to question the role of the state government in your scenario as well. I’m a physician, and it bothers me to no end the extent to which government intrudes into the practice of medicine. The question of who can visit a patient in the emergency room is NOT something that a state or local government should decide. That’s a decision for the patient. And if the patient is not competent to make that decision, common sense decisions made in conjunction with the patient’s caregiver(s) and care team should suffice for all but the most unfortunate situations — which by their very nature cannot be legislated in advance in the first place!

    I hope that you’ll continue exploring Ron Paul’s philosophy of personal liberty and a Constitutional government, if for no other reason that “the way we’ve been doing it” is bankrupting our nation in the service of special interests and lobbyists. In 2006, the third largest “department” in our Federal government (after Dept of Defense and Health/Human Services) was the interest payment on our national debt, at over $400 billion. Unless we begin questioning the role and scope of our Federal government, state reciprocity of gay marriage will be the least of our problems.


  44. Barry Day says:

    Oh, and with respect to “Universal Healthcare”… as a physician, how much of my life should I be forced to give up, and at what price, to provide Universal Healthcare? If I was dirt poor and took out $250,000 in student loans to get through school and residency, and now have expensive debt to service, should that make a difference as to my compensation? Should I be able to decide where I practice, how many patients I will see in a day, and how many minutes I will spend with each patient?

    There’s no question that our current system is, in many ways, the “worst of both worlds” with the toxic mix of corporate and Federal bureaucracies. But today, we’re actually a lot closer to a single payer system than you might think. In fact, 2/3 of all health expenditures are paid by the Federal/State/local governments between Medicare, Medicaid, and DOD/VA systems. And the remaining 1/3 of “corporate care” insurance takes its cue regarding what it will cover & pay directly from Medicare itself.

    Having seen medicine in the UK, Canada, and the US, I agree with Dr. Paul that what we need in healthcare is a resurgence of the doctor-patient relationship, and a drastic reduction in the corporate and government micromanagement that handicaps the current environment. Check out the interview on healthcare he did with the Kaiser Family Foundation:

    Regarding my personal experience in a true single-payer system, perhaps you’ve seen the stories about the horrors of Walter Reed and the care our wounded veterans are receiving. In training, we used to call working at the VA medical center “veterinary medicine”… not out of disrespect, but out of frustration for the level of equipment and support provided in that environment.


  45. Scott-O-Rama says:


    You make some good points. The national debt is an important concern and needs to be addressed ASAP.

    Unfortunately I don’t vote for a candidate on a single issue. I take all of their positions into account. My biggest problem with Ron Paul is that he seems to be to “hands off” on issues where I (my opinion here) think the government does need to be involved at a federal level. I don’t trust my state government (Arizona) to make those decisions.

    I do agree that “the way we’ve been doing it” is broken in many aspects besides the national debt. I’m not in love with any of the Democratic candidates yet either, but I just cannot endorse Ron Paul. I don’t agree with him on too many issues.

    As for universal healthcare, yes, Walter Reed is/was a huge disgrace. Unfortunately though there are too many Americans that are either without insurance or under-insured. Medical bills are the number one reason people file bankruptcy in the U.S. As a doctor I’m sure you’re aware that everyone loses, including you, when that happens.

    I also think that insurance companies have become way too powerful. I don’t believe that they truly have the best interests of the patient or the doctor in mind. I know of many doctors who say that their hands are tied because of HMO regulations, etc.

    Pharmaceutical companies are also too powerful. They claim they need to charge the amounts they do for their drugs because of R&D costs, and yet I see these companies spend billions on marketing, lobbying doctors, and lobbying congress. I have four prescriptions that I get filled every month. Altogether they cost over $100. That’s a lot of money to the average person.

    I personally think we have enough bright, intelligent, creative individuals out there where we could come up with a universal healthcare system that exceeds that of any other country. It might not be perfect, but it has got to be better than what we have now.

  46. jared says:

    I had my mind set this year to kick out the republicans and do it with a swift football kick to the ass.

    My first thought was Hillary Clinton must be a good pick. I was brain washed by the main stream media. I thought Bill did a good job. If there is anyone out there that still thinks this. I highly recommend you spend a few hours reading between the lines. Read the bills Bill Signed as president. Read what Hillary has been voting for. Find out what corporations are backing which candidates.

    I think that anyone who doesn’t do this may as well let Fox News or CNN vote for them.

    I will vote for Ron Paul this coming election and I am going to try and become a delegate. I have also joined the ron paul revolution army at I have spoke to over 15 people that I know and they will voting for him too. I must warn anyone that tries to write negative artices about Paul. Offer your critisism respectfully. I can tell you right now anytime I see someone so polarized against a candidate I am not committed to find out the TRUTH.

    Now for your comments. The way he votes starts with the constitution. If it doesn’t pass the first step it doesn’t belong in our government. That is true integrety. That’s the hype. And it’s the Truth.

  47. Richard says:


    The main reason to vote for Ron Paul is that he for the most freedom for the most people. Any other candidate will continue trampling our Constitutional rights willy-nilly. Don’t take my or anyone else’s word for it, check their records.

    You may not agree with everything he stands for, but you gotta give the man credit for consistency. He has honor and integrity. And it isn’t all about him – can anyone say that of Rudy, Mitt or Hillary?


  48. EEkman says:

    First and foremost, we need a revolution in the federal government. That place needs to be housecleaned. Pauls the only guy whos going to encourage the motley crew on the hill to take their oath of office seriously. Second, even If I dont agree with him on everything he’s still got to go through congress, Paul is one guy I trust not to abuse power. Third, if he does manage to cut spending enough to get rid of the IRS, the states will probably then jack up their income tax 10-15%, and be able to provide state healthcare or other social services. The cost would be cheaper and easier to work out the kinks because its more local, and would foster healthy competition between the states, encouraging innovation and lowering costs.

    Bottom line, were in for a hard crash anyway. Our empire is dying, our economy is about to pop. Paul is the guy who was warning us and knows what needs to happen.

    He was also right about the war from day 1. Its about time we stop listening to the folks who were wrong from day 1, and start lending an ear to the guys who were right all along. What else is Paul right about?

  49. David says:

    I’d never heard of Ron Paul before you posted about him, but now I have heard of him, and reading the responses of the various supporters makes me recall a clever aphorism about religion: “Dear Lord, please protect me from your followers.” These folks scare the bejeesus out of me. Way too intense.

  50. You’re a fool.

    * Against Universal Heathcare;

    He supports free market health care. It worked for us back in the 50’s and early 60’s very well.

    * Against gay marriage;

    No, he is not. He said he support gay marriage in Google interview. You douche

    * Against a woman’s right to choose (Abortion Rights);

    Wrong again. He wants to let states decide.

    * Against embryonic stem cell research;

    Wrong again. He wants the private sector to handle it. He opposes government research

    * Against the Kyoto Treaty on the environment;

    He believes in enforcing property law, therefore, he is very strong pro environment

    * Against a minimum wage increase;

    It is killing our economy. You obviously don’t know how economics works. He also believes in ending corporate welfare, why don’t you mention that?

    * Against a path to citizenship for illegals;

    No, he believes they should get in line. He wants to reform immigration.

    * Against gun purchase background checks;

    Why should there be?

    * Against an assault weapons ban;

    Why can’t people make their own decisions? That’s what freedom is.

    * Against “No Child Left Behind”;

    Horrible piece of legislation.

    * Against Internet neutrality;

    Yeah, free market. So?

    * For Alaska National Wildlife Reserve oil drilling;

    He would allow the free market to drill if whoever owns the land wants to.

    You’re a douche that only tries to point out negativity. Go fuck yourself, asshole!

  51. rickdog says:

    In the future if Ron Paul is elected:

    When your child dies after he eats baby food with antifreeze in it after the FDA is abolished, you’ll change your mind.
    When the manufacturing plant up the block poisons your drinking water after the EPA is abolished, you’ll change your mind.
    After all the freeways have toll booths and it costs you $50 to visit your mama cross-state, you’ll change your mind.

    After your brother dies in yet another bridge collapse on a Federal highway, you’ll change your mind.

    When you’re forced to eat maggot encrusted meat because of no food regulations, you’ll change your mind.

    I know, the libertarians will come back and say that none of this will happen because industry will be self-regulating, but that will bring little solace and many others after child or brother or mother are dead before that all kicks in.

    Libertarianism always leads to privatization, corruption, greed, and a corporatistic oligarchy. Libertarianism is an enemy of the weak and minorities. In Paul’s mind, the Civil Rights gains since the 60’s are ill-gotten, and Paul would not support any legislation that would protect the weak or disadvantaged. Libertarians are against Social Security. Libertarians are against the Wagner Act and organized labor. Libertarians are against the common man.

    Libertarians are social conservatives, if you took imperialism out of PNAC it would be an ideal libertarian project. PNAC has rewarded us with a disastrous attempt at nation-building in Iraq, record deficits, the largest increase in domestic spending since Lyndon Johnson, expansion of entitlements via an unholy alliance with corporate America, curbs on civil liberties and a host of other ills. The current disaster that is befalling our country is directly related to libertarian dogma, it’s mindset it the most perilous challenge that we face today.

    Before any of you are tempted to go down this disastrous route, I’d advise you to do some serious study. Learn from history that the results from the libertarian perspective are devastatingly disappointing. Instead of limited government libertarians got hypocrisy on the first order.

    Check out “The Elephant in the Room: Evangelicals, Libertarians and the Battle to Control the Republican Party” by Roger Sager (read George Wills commentary here:

    Research the little known libertarian coup attempt to overthrow the government during FDR, led by (TAA-DAH) Prescott Bush, Georgie’s grandpappy (Google “smedly butler” or “American Liberty League”). Wikipedia Listen here:
    FDR’s retort:
    “They steal the livery of great national ideals to serve discredited special interests…. This minority in business and industry… engage in vast propaganda to spread fear and discord among the people. They would gang up against the people’s liberties…. They seek the restoration of their selfish power.….
    Our resplendent economic aristocracy does not want to return to that individualism of which they prate, even though the advantages under that system went to the ruthless and the strong. They realize that in 34 months we have built up new instruments of public power. In the hands of a people’s government this power is wholesome and proper. But in the hands of political puppets of an economic aristocracy, such power would provide shackles for the liberties of the people. Give them their way and they will take the course of every aristocracy of the past – power for themselves, enslavement for the public.”

    Libertarians will try to disassociate themselves from these historical events and the rest of their shameful past, but don’t let them. They try to demonize and minimize the great gains achieved for the public by FDR, the proof of the success of the New Deal is in the pudding, it gave us a powerful and economically stable middle class and new won liberties. Libertarianism is against the protections that prevent society from reverting to a socioeconomic jungle where the strong devour the weak, it stands condemned as the champion of “free market” policies that today promote economic instability and social injustice, both in the United States and the world. Libertarians want the power back to where they think it belongs, corporate America and the unprivileged few. It was Mussolini himself that renamed the word “corporatism” – he called it “fascism”.

  52. Buckwheat says:

    “Libertarianism always leads to privatization, corruption, greed, and a corporatistic oligarchy.”

    Wrong, big government leads to corruption and a corporatistic oligarchy, which is exactly what we have now.

    How can libertarianism lead to corporatism when corporatism is Big Government in bed with Big Business? Under libertarianism corporations must supply products the people want in order to survive. It’s government and corporatism that are the hotbeds of graft, waste, and oligarchism.

    Ron Paul is the right guy for these times.

  53. Scott-O-Rama says:

    You’re a douche that only tries to point out negativity. Go fuck yourself, asshole!


    You make your case for Ron Paul so elegantly and intelligently, I have no choice but to immediately start campaigning for him. I am sure he is proud to count you among his supporters.

  54. rickdog says:

    rickdog: “Libertarianism always leads to privatization, corruption, greed, and a corporatistic oligarchy.â€

    Buckwheat: Wrong, big government leads to corruption and a corporatistic oligarchy, which is exactly what we have now.

    Buckwheat, you need to bone up on history. Libertarianism got it’s foot in the door during Reagan’s administration. Remember the suppression of the trade unions and rampant deregulation? This has continued under Bush, and is what has lead to the rise of corporatism in the US and it’s increasing dominion over the working class. Yes, this is the basic tenet of the libertatian movement.

    Libertarians will try to convince you that black is white, and that war is peace, and that slavery is freedom. Go back and re-read the comment posts by the Libertarians on this article, and think “Moonie” The “Libbies” roam the web and pounce on articles to post comments espousing the tenents of the Cult of Ron Paul. They’ve a set of points that they always list, the libertarian dogma, and parrot the thoughts of their leader. I hope those that truly love freedom are not swayed and seriously study and understand what the sociopolitical ramifications of libertarianism are, and not be drawn into the movement. Demagogues come in many flavors, be sure before you sign on the dotted line.

  55. Barry Day says:


    Unfortunately I don’t vote for a candidate on a single issue.

    That’s not unfortunate, that’s fantastic. For me, the national debt isn’t “the” issue, it’s simply a symptom that reflects the severity of our underlying illness. Kind of like a patient with a high fever.

    The illness behind the national debt break out into numerous issues related to the role of the Federal government in our lives. These issues are what we need to address if we’re going to preserve our individual liberties and constitutional republic. I hope you’ll spend some time on reading Congressman Paul’s speeches and writings over the past decades. It took me a while to appreciate the rationality of his perspectives, but it was worth the effort.

    Regarding the problem of underinsurance and medical bills causing bankruptcy… here are some more of my perspectives if you can stand it:

    I think the idea of health care “insurance” that pays for, as Dr. Paul remarks in his Kaiser interview, “the first dollar” of expenditures is
    ridiculous. Like he says, that’s not insurance, that’s prepaid medical care.

    You don’t buy homeowner’s insurance and expect it to cover the cost of repainting your house, or replacing the carpeting. You don’t buy homeowner’s insurance and proceed to roast marshmallows over an open campfire inside your living room because the insurance will cover you if the place burns down, or if you don’t like the resulting smoke damage. But that’s exactly what we expect of health insurance — folks can eat three meals a day at McDonald’s, avoid all physical activity, smoke cigarettes… and then expect health insurance or a national health plan to fix the results of that behavior? There’s no wonder health insurance is unaffordable.

    Insurance is supposed to pool risk to protect against the unexpected. If we all started out with coverage at birth for medical catastrophes, and treated our bodies with a modicum of respect because we knew there was a real economic cost for seeking medical care, we might be able to get somewhere. But in that model, there is little (if any) role for government. We just need people to take a bit more responsibility for their health because they understand the cost of not doing so, and if you’re born with or develop a severe medical problem, you would be covered.

    I currently have a high-deductible health plan (HDHP) with a healthcare savings account. I’m fortunate in that I’m able to do that, but the system is still biased against this type of economically rational coverage. I HAD to align myself with an Evil Big Insurance Company for the HDHP, because I needed the insurer’s collective bargaining in setting prices with providers. Ideally, that sort of “squeezing” of providers wouldn’t happen — providers would publish the prices of their services, and I could go into an encounter with a reasonable expectation of the cost, and potentially negotiate based upon my willingness to pay cash. But thanks to “most favored nation” clauses in providers’ contracts with insurers, they can’t discount for cash — even though most providers would rather have cash with treatment as opposed to fighting an insurance company for 30-180 days.

    Furthermore, because there aren’t a lot of patients who consider price in their “shopping” for health care services, most providers will charge unaffiliated/uninsured patients much MORE than the negotiated rates with the big insurers. Hence exacerbating the problem of bankruptcies for the uninsured. With no market pressure to reduce “list” prices, they stay wherever the providers want them — and they end up being a trap that snares only the uninsured or unaware.

    This whole (highly regulated, mind you) system gives the big insurers and big provider networks too much power when the real relationship should be between the patient and individual provider. I believe that we need to get government OUT of medicine, and return the market forces to operate between the patient and the physician (or whatever provider the patient chooses — including nontraditional therapies, which are sometimes preferred for certain people and ailments).

    I’ve stopped practicing commercial medicine in no small part because I didn’t want to work in an insanely complex and ridiculously regulated system. I didn’t want to deal with the government, and I didn’t want to deal with insurance companies. I wanted to help patients. To the extent we move in the direction away from the doctor-patient relationship, I think our system will continue to suffer.

  56. Barry Day says:

    Oh, and one more thing:

    I don’t trust my state government (Arizona) to make those decisions

    Me neither! But imagine a world in which you didn’t need to worry about what the Federal government was doing, because it was safely in its Constitutional “box”, and could focus most of your political interest on your state and local government. That’s where the action *should* be — I’d much prefer a state government to make most decisions (at least the ones left to it in the Constitution), since my state government is more local, and more accessible, that the Federal government. Thank goodness we have 50 states to choose from, as it’s unlikely they’ll all completely drop the ball at the same time. And in the worst case scenario, if your state is just intransigent in its incompetence, there are still 49 states left.

    But God help us if the Federal government screws up. That gives us a self-destructive foreign policy, “free” trade managed for corporate interests, an irrational immigration policy that leaves a porous Southern border while discouraging legal immigration of talented people that we desperately need, and a voracious appetite to consume everything you produce plus borrowings on top of that to feed the lobbyists and special interests who call the shots. And on top of that, as the Federal government asserts its dominance in areas once left to the states, the states lose their own self-sufficiency and become dependent on beacons of competence like FEMA in the moment of crisis.

  57. horace says:

    well, it goes like this.
    The mintute we give the federal governement the power to determine our “rights”, thats the mintute we give them the power to take them away. Personally i think anyone should have the right to marry anyone they want….Even though RP may have a personal view on gay marriage, which i think if you look into it deeper, you’ll relize, he’s not really against “gay marriage” per say, he’s against redefining(on a federal level) what marriage is. So basically put, we give the feds the power to give us somthing…you give them the power to take it away. RP is trying to bring our attention to the simple fact that the federal government should not really be in control of such things. What happens when certain liberal candidates become president, and the feds decide gay marriage is legal in all states, wonderful, all my gay friends are happy. Then next term, certain conservative candidate gets elected and reverses it, then what? A federal law,(which according to the constitution, is not really legal) gaurentees nothing….I think this is a bigger concern, as to weather your marriage is recognized from state to state…besides…there would be no differance between a strait marriage, or a gay marriage under RP anyway….he advocates equal rights for everyone, and no special privlages for any married couple, so what would be the point of having your marriage legally recognized…..go ahead and call yourself married…makes no differance…..what RP is really trying to do, is to get governement control out of our lives…..because, he…like most of us hopfully see soon, knows that our liberties are slowly fading away in the name of safety and security, and treating everyone fairly, which is exactly what is not happening….i think if one really looks beyong the “issues” you will find them moot…our presidental races are too wrapped up in issues, to the point that the presidency is determined too much by who agrees or disagrees with certain issues, and i think we miss the bigger picture becuase of it….it’s a sad day, when political races are won by people who are able to gather the most people under their wing, simply by creating a media savy image, thats able to encompass as many of those issues as possible, and confuse as many people over to their side, simply becuase they may agree with an issue or too. I think under RP, we’d begin to recognize our responsibilities to our selfs and immediate neighbors, as apposed to trying to police the world, and make decisions for a whole country.

  58. […] posted his views of the current crop of Republican candidates.  I had asked him his opinion of Ron Paul and mentioned how I am backing […]

  59. […] posted his views of the current crop of Republican candidates.  I had asked him his opinion of Ron Paul and mentioned how I am backing […]

  60. Maria says:

    I have seen the revolution posters here in San Francisco, with the backwards spelled love.. I find it hard to believe with what this page says about this candidate that the signs I see are for him.. Anyone know what they are related to in San Francisco?

  61. Candace says:

    Yes, give the power back to the States not Federal. We need Congress to make our money not a Rich Society deemed responsible. Ron Paul is for getting rid of the IRS. Just take a look at our freedoms and our countries sharp decline. Please Wake up America do the research. Realize who has the power here…..not the people, but lets change that an elect someone who is actually for the people.

  62. Redqueen says:


    As far as a woman’s right to choose and gay marriage Dr.Paul believes states should make those decisions not the federal government! You know at first I dismissed him. Then I decided to actually take a look at him and his message. I am finally happy to not have to choose “a lesser of two evils”.

    Ron Paul..Have you googled him yet???

  63. wizard100 says:

    A huge danger in leaving the “free market” to run it’s own course, and shrinking the federal government is that this is opening the door wide open to destruction of unions and labour in general. I agree whole-heartedly with Rickdog above who said it so eloquently. Thanks Rickdog.
    in addition, leaving the states to decided about women’s rights and gay marriage is overlooking the fact that these things ought not be legislated at all. state level or federal level, he’s still in favor of controlling human rights.
    i’d like to point out one other thing regarding human rights, for example in so-called “women’s rights” … women’s rights were stolen from them and are being sold back piecemeal under the watchful eye of assimilation.
    Here is an interesting and well researched article about Ron Paul:


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: