You are absolutely right ,Mr. I was not prepared for such vicious and blatant attacks on Ron Paul. The debates showed bias, the sleazy attack by David Frum from CNN full of slander, but the most hidious attacks ( you can check them on amazon .com) were by a large group of people on Ron Paul's books , some people in the comments called them Levintards and you will see why. The group wrote personal attacks with name calling giving the books 1 review ( the lowest ) similar to David Frum style -all in January 2012 although the books were written a few years back. It is clear that it has something to do with the book they are promoting and that is how they got the name Levintards. These people use sewer tactics.

So I would not be suprized if the CC company had the same motivation in our political process. They should publish the name of the CEO of that company -may be interesting.

And Cameron Ford likes to generalize...

And Cameron Ford is clueless as to what is going on in this election.

Yeah...it's the credit card company. The credit card company didn't stop you from filing a week before the deadline. If you wait until the last minute this is what to expect.

How can you be an adult and still hide behind the "dog ate my homework" excuse?

This is pathetic.

Endorse Liberty reported $1,020,055 in receipts.

Nearly all of its revenue, $900,000, came from hedge fund manager Peter Thiel, a founder of PayPal. The group also got $10,000 from Sean Wheeler of Marietta, Ga., CEO of Pure Hypnosis, which sells a hypnotic treatment for smoking addiction.

Another pro-Paul PAC, the Santa Rita Super PAC, reported 234,096 in receipts.

Donors to Santa Rita include hedge fund manager Mark Hart III and Shannon Hart, of Fort Worth, $100,000; real estate investor Donald Huffines of Dallas, $50,000; and Patrick Walker of Little Rock, $50,000. All listed their occupation as self-employed investor.

This is exactly why Super PACs and PACs should be illegal. 900K out of 1 Mill from one person. 200K out of 234K from just 3 people. The biggest threat to LIBERTY ever! All Libertarians should be ashamed of this. Most of all RON PAUL!!!

It's not like they had nearly as much money as the Gingrich and Romney PACs.

Ron Paul doesn't spport Super Pac's. However there is nothing he can do about them.

Things happen, particularly if someone gave a credit card donation, forgot they'd done so, then challenged that payment when they received the bill. Also, errors in entering the credit card number can also cause problems that need to be resolved. the Revolution PAC has a valid excuse, conditions beyond their control, and are unlikely to experience any legal problems as they reported it promptly.

So it's premature to jump to the unwarranted conclusion that there is some sort of deep dark conspiracy, when simple everyday errors are far more likely.

There are those who don't want Ron Paul, mainly supporters of the other Republican candidates, but with little support for Ron Paul outside of a small band of fanatics and Paul consistently running 3rd or 4th, they don't need to risk running a dangerous conspiracy that could backfire badly.

He can to do something about it. They all can. Denounce them at every opportunity they're in front of a camera! Tell them to all go to hell and don't spend a dime trying to support me! Nobody will because they don't want those wealthy donors to turn on them and start donating to the other guy.

Somehow, Faux News will blame this on Obama. My guess is they will use CARD act to blame him.

The best way to fix this problem is to treat the Super-PACs exactly like they claim to be - INDIVIDUALS. If they can not file their reports on-time to maintain their tax exempt status then it should be taxed as EARNED INCOME under IRS standards.

He can to do something about it. They all can. Denounce them at every opportunity they're in front of a camera! Tell them to all go to hell and don't spend a dime trying to support me! Nobody will because they don't want those wealthy donors to turn on them and start donating to the other guy.

And then they'd never get elected. Are you not aware it's a pay for election, pay to play, system?

Paul has said publicly he's against corporate personhood, as are many libertarians...but you can't do anything about it if you don't win the elections. Who in the heck could win without beating these corrupt stooges at their own game? Face it, the game is rigged and the only way to take it down is to infiltrate it.

How does the FBI take down the Mafia? They infiltrate it by playing by their rules until their in a position to do something of worth. This is how we have to take down the pay for play system of politics...anything else is a pure fantasy.

If Ron Paul were as wonderful as people on the 'net make him out to be, he'd have a chance at actually winning a state, much less the nomination.

Perhaps InTheShelter can explain what exactly is going on in this election?

Your turn!

MrLawless Antipc

You have to wonder if the CC company did that on accident, The Establisment is scared of Ron Paul, because he stands for the constitution the establishment is rigging these elections. Not one primary has passed with out allegations of Voter Fraud, Iowa, South Carolina, and Now Allegations of Florida Vote Fraud www.NoPCTV.com watch this video.

Paul is polling at 11% and has a ceiling of 15%. "If" he ran as an independent he would pull some Liberals, but more Conservatives. Check the money on hand and know that he's raised $26M with $1.9M on hand. The other guys will outspend him but, in the end, it's the people in the election booths that will say "no" to Ron Paul and "yes" to President Obama.

Fraud? He received in votes what he's polling. Don't look for fake conspiracies when there are valid ones in front of all of our faces. He's just another millionaire.

@Cameron Ford - and 61 ppl at $500k+ at POTUS PAC- and your a hypocrite





If Ron Paul were as wonderful as people on the 'net make him out to be, he'd have a chance at actually winning a state, much less the nomination.

Yes, because we all know that the electoral/political system is geared to reward candidates who have integrity, intelligence, and wisdom, and who stick to their principles even when it flies in the face of the establishment.

Come off it, PC. Ron Paul stomps all over the constitution on a regular basis. The only difference is that he tries to tell people that he's "defending" it while he does.

Sandrich, revisit your theory on Paul's electability later this month, after he has bagged a bundle of caucus delegates. By the way, Ron Paul polls very well against Obama. Some polls have him neck-and-neck in the general election, and taking more independent voters.

The famous political pundit, Will Rogers, said many years ago, "American government is the best money can buy". In the '70s, Congress took steps to (1) limit the size of contributions and (2) to make public those who donated large amounts of money. America was on the road to giving the election process back to the voters. But today, the system has reverted to the "dark side" and large amounts of money are being used to control the electoral process and conditions are worse than ever. When this election is over, one side, the losing side, will call for reform. The other side, the winning side, will do all it can to keep Super PACs in business....until the next election when Super PACs fail to keep them in power.

Sure Wagon, be happy to.

We have 3 bought and paid for politicians and Ron Paul running for the GOP. The 3 want to continue to bankrupt us, conduct business as usual, go to war with Iran, essentially the same policies that Obama is using. Policies that, no coincidence, have benefited many large corporations (defense, banking, financial).

Ron Paul wants to drastically scale back government, balance the budget, end the Fed, stop the wars, roll back unconstitutional laws (Patriot Act, NDAA), essentially the OPPOSITE of the policies that have nearly ruined us. That platform is terrifying to the corporations listed above.

The media has instituted a virtual blackout on Ron Paul, after all you can't get votes if no one hears about you. They even covered Colbert in SC, and that was not even a real candidate. Go to msnbc, usatoday, NY Times, CNN, they rarely give him ANY coverage, if if they do it's slanted BS. The Daily Show makes fun of this Ron Paul bias ALL the time, it's so blatantly obvious. All we are asking for is for the media to get out of the way, just cover ALL the candidates and let the citizens decide.

Seems all the support for repukes is coming from venture capitalists and hedge fund operators who do nothing for a living but bet against the good that is being done

JellyBelly--

PollDateSampleObama (D)Paul (R)Spread

RCP Average
1/5 - 1/28
--
47.7
42.3
Obama +5.4

USA Today/Gallup
1/27 - 1/28
907 RV
49
46
Obama +3

Rasmussen Reports
1/23 - 1/24
1000 LV
47
37
Obama +10

PPP (D)
1/13 - 1/16
700 RV
47
42
Obama +5

CBS News/NY Times
1/12 - 1/16
1021 RV
46
42
Obama +4

ABC News/Wash Post
1/12 - 1/15
RV
49
42
Obama +7

CNN/Opinion Research
1/11 - 1/12
928 RV
48
46
Obama +2

Reuters/Ipsos
1/5 - 1/9
896 RV
48
41
Obama +7

In a vote out the incumbent year, here's the way that it stands. Keep in mind that Paul will not win the GOP nomination. Romney's Karl Rove money will make sure of that. As a 3 person race, Obama has a huge edge. The diluting of the vote will cost mainly the GOP. Another poster said a few days ago: "President Obama has it in the bag---unless he gets caught having sex with a dead cat. Then, it's a toss up."

What about the court case in georgia concerning Obama's eligibility to be put on the ballot ? He was found to have used a SS# that was issued to a man born in 1890 on his tax returns. It also appears that to be a 'natural born' citizen, both parents must be citizens. Obama's father has never been a US citizen, therefore Obama is not and could not be a 'natural born' citizen, a requirement of anyone seeking the office of president. It seems pretty cut and dried to me, the fact Mitt Romney's father was/is a citizen of Mexico puts him in the same boat.

The media has yet to report on this, Obama was subpoena'd by the court and failed to show despite the secratary of state informing him it would be to his own peril.

Here is the link: www.scribd.com/doc/79854466/Georgia-Swensson-Powell-v-Obama-Certified-Transcript-1-26-12-Hearing-tfb

Andy,



Yeeowzza!!! You're right! The sky is falling! %hit, where's my damn hard hat?

Free market economists don't use the cooked fake number the government use to measure inflation. According to free market measures, inflation was 10% last year and unemployment is upwards of 18%.

Well, lets see,

Paypal, Overstock.com, Target..... Sounds like the Big banks are going to Mitts and the retail and internet is going to Dr Paul. Interesting happenings.

The main republican pac has over 51 million already, the presidents isn't even close yet....

Now I see a report that obama has 82 mil on hand and a silicon valley pac has 71 mil, man it's going to get spendy....

gregreedan

Where did you get the idea Dr Paul is doing away with Government?

Ron Paul is the only voice left for working and middle class people. If young people and our children are to have any kind of bright future, the Federal Government must be severely downsized.

27,,,, Obviously the majority of working & Middle Class people don't agree with you. Look at his support in the primaries --- In a race for dead last

The issue is that the Federal Government needs to be RATIONALLY downsized and for every great point Ron Paul makes, he makes statements that are implicity naive / based on the assumption that people with act ethically, for the common good, etc.

Many of the issues associated with government waste are traceable to people NOT acting for the common good - whether it be laziness, malfeasance or whatever.

It would be great if things were as simple as Ron would seem to think they are.

Based on your comment it's obvious you don't know what Paul stands for or you have deliberately misrepresented his platform. Feel free to not comment in the future if you lack understand or if you have to lie.

Ron Paul is in for the long haul and though he hasn't won yet, he almost did in Iowa, did reasonably well in New Hampshire, and he'll win in Maine and the caucus states. The race isn't over yet.

But yeah, he does get a little too idealistic at times--though it's better to be idealistic than malicious.

Ron Paul is the only voice left for working and middle class people. If young people and our children are to have any kind of bright future, the Federal Government must be severely downsized.

Except that he wants to do away with most protections for the working class and middle class, his "severe downsizing" includes doing away with minimum wage laws and EPA and OSHA and bank regulations and stock market regulations and food safety regulations and drug safety regulations. If Ron Paul had his way, the only protections the non-rich would have left would be basic police and military and fire - and even that could get cut.

As for the poor, they would be on their own, unless they can get some private charity to help. If private charity was sufficient, we wouldn't have started Government aid programs in the first place.

Ron Paul actually believes that if we hadn't been involved in the middle east, then Al Qaida would have played nice and ignored us - he does not not realizing that the goal of Al Qaida is to conquer the middle east, then conquer the world to bring it under the rule of their dictatorial Caliphate. Retreating behind our borders and declaring "peace" would be just like Neville Chamberlain making peace with Hitler, with the same disasterous "world war" result.

CM - Just because someone is not worth the min wage doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to work. If these people can agree on a wage then why not allow them to work?

And you think that Al Qaida is out to conquer the world? Really? Who is the nut about this subject exactly?

And don't even start with the FDA, you couldn't count the number of people sick or dead from contaminated produce that the FDA was tasked to protect people against. It really isn't their fault, they can't possibly do the job anyway.

Except that he wants to do away with most protections for the working class and middle class

No he actually doesn't...but it's a nice talking point when you disagree with is methods.

What is wiping out the middle class? INFLATION. It makes standards of living fall while cost of living rises. It also creates artifical booms in the economy that MUST bust when the market clears. He's the only candidate out there trying to REALLY reign in the Federal Reserve so we can stop the massive printing of money that's led us to 10% inflation last year (free market economists measure inflation directly, unlike the cooked half-baked numbers the governmnet issues that say inflation was ultra-low last year). The things that are most scarce see inflation the worst, along with anything the government subsidizes...like food, medicine, energy, etc.

If you want gas prices to stop rising, heating energy to stop skyrocketing, food prices to stop from escalating, medical bills to cease to be unaffordable, I suggest you consider the ONLY protection for the middle class, to keep them from ceasing to exist altogether, is to protect the medium of exchange they use everyday (the dollar) and allow them to keep the wealth they earn instead of transfering through inflation and bailouts to our banking masters and those corporations that spring up around them like parasites on a shark.

The banks are sharks, feeding on us all, and the corporations that feed off the banks are parasites cheerleading this inflationary cycle that's destroying the middle class. What you call "protections" for the middle class are merely gimmicks and handouts if you don't stop the inflationary policies.

BTW, why don't you look up charts on worker fatalities and OSHA. You'll find they didn't even change the trajectory of the downward trend in worker fatalities previous to their inception. That's right, they saved NO LIVES. The trend was falling previous to their inception and didn't so much as increase a percent. Technology made workers safer, not government...as tech replaces workers in dangerous positions the tech gets mangled, not us. It's that simple. Those same charts show the internet boom and how it accelerated worker safety tremendously...not OSHA.

Nice pro-goverment fairytale though.

You'll find govt was in bed with corporations and let them break property rights laws to allow them to pollute air, sea, and land...hence the EPA wouldn't have been required has that illegality have been stopped and judges and corporate heads been brought to justice.

Everything you believe is standard state school propaganda about the benign nature of government. It isn't benign, and it isn't virtuous.

CM -

Your fallacy is assuming that entities like the FDA exist (today) primarily to protect citizens rather than to protect and promote pharm and food corporate interests. Look up Monsanto executives, lobbying, and government appointments (particularly in FDA). Scary.

Absolutely amazing that someone thinks that merely doing away with the banks and re-establishing the gold standard will somehow magically eliminate inflation. Not a chance. The laws of supply and demand will still be there to assure rising prices for increasingly scarce resources, even with a "gold standard". Worse, a "gold standard" won't allow a sufficient money supply for the size of our economy, that's the reason why the gold standard was dropped in the first place. Gold isn't magical, it's just another commodity, an assortment of commodities also works as a foundation for a monetary system, and allows for a much larger economy.

Even more amazing that some people think doing away with regulations will somehow "protect" people, forgetting the reason why those regulatory agencies were created in the first place. OSHA was created because of an appalling number of preventable injuries and deaths in the work places, most notably the infamous Triangle Shirtwaist fire. The FDA was created because of numerous incidences of food borne illnesses, contamination, poisonings, and bogus remedies.

Now you could argue that certain regulations should be changed, and that potential misdeeds of regulators should be investigated, and I might even agree with you. But to argue that there should be no regulation at all because the free marketplace is always good and benevolent and always does the right thing is both incredibly naive and incredibly foolish.

CM - Just because someone is not worth the min wage doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to work. If these people can agree on a wage then why not allow them to work?

And just what job is "not worth the min wage"? Even a McJob flipping burgers is "worth the minimum wage".

And you think that Al Qaida is out to conquer the world? Really? Who is the nut about this subject exactly?

Who is nuts? Al Qaida. They're the ones who said their goal is to re-establish the Islamic Caliphate, drive out the infidels, then commit Jihad against the world to bring it under their Islamic control. Of course, it is control and power they want, they've sacrificed their friends and murdered thousands, so it's not surprising that they'd corrupt and misuse their own religion to further that malevolent goal.

@ CM:

forgetting the reason why those regulatory agencies were created in the first place.

The reasons why administrative agencies were originally created, and the purposes that they now serve, are often two very different things. If you look at the folks running these agencies in recent history, they are often members of upper-level management in the very corporate entities that the agency purportedly regulates. After their time "protecting the public" from these corporations (that they worked for), these individuals often go right back into their corporate jobs. Michael Taylor is the most blatant current example. He has repeatedly jumped back and forth between being an executive at Monsanto and working for the agencies that regulate it. He is currently (appointed under Obama admin) the "senior advisor to the commissioner" at the FDA. The bureaucracy is rife with these sorts of conflicts of interest, and there is no check on these shady ethics.

I don't disagree with your underlying premise that the general public should be protected; but I think the main reason the public is at risk from corporate gluttony is that federal regulations and regulators are often prone to protect corporate interests at our expense (the recent meltdown in the financial sector--and the bailout of banks at the expense of taxpayers--is another example of this). We are not just talking about some "misdeeds," here. We are talking about a systemic problem. Monsanto has been crusading against small farmers for years. They have strong-armed hundreds of farmers out of business with their GMO patents. Likewise, the FDA makes it incredibly difficult for small farmers to exist in today's market; its regulations protect corporate agriculture and, as a corollary, assaults small producers. The FDA has persitently and progressively created regulations that entrench a corporate model of food production and distribution (a model, by the way, that is inherently unsafe). Do you think this is coincidence?

I'm not a conspiracy theorist. In fact, until recently, I thought all of this was incidental. I thought, "yeah, maybe regulations make it rough on small farmers, but that's the price we pay for safe food. It's not like the government is out to get small farmers." Then I started looking beyond the mainstream media and realized I had been somewhat naive. We are all (rightly) concerned about corporate influence over our representatives, but we seldom think about the incredible influence that these corporations wield over the bureaucracy--a bureaucracy, by the way, that exercises powers of all branches of government; it creates laws (or, regulations with the force of law), it enforces those laws, and it adjudicates disputes arising from those laws.

You have to ask yourself, at some point, whether the government, even if we assume it originally had the best intentions, has failed us. I'm not for abolishing all agencies (maybe not even the FDA). But the insidious relationship between the government and corporate interests are often reflected most clearly through these agencies. We need more than merely a tweaking of the system. We need dramatic reform. Ron Paul is the only candidate speaking to this vision.

CM- you're funny, if we kept our noses out of other people's business we wouldn't have half the crap we do now,"drive out the infidels" would be the key words here don't you think? If we weren't there they would have no one to drive out. Unless of course you agree we should attack Iran, or overthrow the "regime" in Cuba? If that's the case please feel free to go, and take your sons with you, my family members are a little busy in Iraq and Afghanistan.

If the FDA is so great why is it that we have so many 1-800-BAD DRUG commercials? I watched FOUR different ones just today.

Absolutely amazing that someone thinks that merely doing away with the banks and re-establishing the gold standard will somehow magically eliminate inflation

Not banks, the Federal Reserve, Dr. Paul has worked for years to get them audited, he finally got a partial audit how did that work out? Oh that's right 16 TRILLION dollars in secret bailouts, wonder what we'd find if we did a complete audit?

You must be one of the Levintards, Dunkin23 -same sewer tactic of character assasination as on amazon .com

The rEVOLution has been compromised! Peter Thiel is an agent of the BILDERBERG GROUP/NWO!

hxxp://www.bilderbergmeetings.org/governance.html

The rEVOLution has been compromised! Peter Thiel is an agent of the
BILDERBERG GROUP/NWO!

Thanks for bringing tears of joy and peals of laughter to the opponents of Ron Paul. In your paranoia, you're attacking one of Ron Paul's biggest supporters! Keep this up, and the "rEVOLution" will break down from infighting and bogus accusations and counter-accusations!

Ron Paul already has a well founded reputation for eccentricity, and with paranoid rants like that, his supporters will look even more crazy than he is!

Keep up the good work, the supporters of Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, and Obama will thank you for your efforts.

I did a lousy job of conveying my stand on this. I believe in none of these conspiracy theories nor do I support Ron Paul's so called revolution. I was trying to point out the hypocrisy in this situation. Conspiracy theories and the true believers ARE one of my favorite forms of entertainment. I think of it as a cross between a freak show and a mental ward. Who wouldn't enjoy that?

Look everyone, two morons who think all Paul supporters and Paul himself are conspiracy theorists!

Slanderous collectivist douchensteins.

ProIndivdual-That sir is libelous slander! I have contacted the U.N. and they have triangulated your current location through the chip in your head. The black helicopters have been dispatched and a spot reserved for you at a FEMA concentration camp. Enjoy your reeducation, and please come again!

Really? That's all you have? More non-sense?

Ad hominem is like the white flag of debate.

We aren't even mostly conspiracy theorists. Paul is not a conspiracy theorist.

Anytime you want a real debate we will engage you. Until then, stop your collectivist diatribes about how we're able to be steroetyped into neat little boxes for your comdeci statist enjoyment.

You remind me of so many RepubliBloods and DemoCrips I've met (not to be confused with people who actually see past those labels). You're thinking is limited to false paradigms and a symptom of psychosis (black and white thinking; a logically fallacious thought pattern).

You are the one suffering from a "conspiracy theory". That Obama isn't a warmonger necon like Bush, a domestic surveiller, a torturer, a PATRIOT Act supporter, a TSA pat down lover, etc. You suffer from the delusion your government is benign, or worse...benficient. You may think some other RepubliBlood candidate is better than Paul for the country, while they continue to wipe out the middle class through inflation of the currency and PREDICTABLE boom and busts cycles created by artifically high inflation and artificially low interest rates conducted by the monopoly on money the Federal Reserve holds.

This isn't a conspiracy...it's just failed ideas in their death throws. It's willful ignorance of the masses. It's the eventual result of organizing a society according to an informal logical fallacy (argumentum ad populum; appeal to the crowd aka voting). It's a generation educated by the state, and worse by their television prpaganda machines. It's the blind leading the blind on a crusade for sight...and you sir, are an aspiring drum major. You'd rather make jokes according to your mistaken collectivist notions than to educate yourself. Thanks for being part of the problem.

Hence, why I called you a moron. It's not an insult...it's an observation.

BTW...slanderous means " a false and malicious statement or report about someone"...it's not the same as "slander" in general. You trying to correct me on the 'slander/libel mistake' doesn't apply. I wasn't calling it slander...I was saying it was slanderous in the colloquial sense, which was the correct usage. "Slanderous" doesn't just apply to speech. But thanks for attmepting to make a belittling joke in order to prove intellectual superiotity you don't possess.

From my experience Ron Paul supporters don't debate, because there is really nothing to debate. Ronald's platform is nothing more than an unworkable jingoistic pseudo-patriotic list of talking points. I'm all for making government more efficient and lowering taxes if possible, but what Ron proposes is essentially throwing the baby out with the bath water.

You're still not debating..you're begging the question, straw manning, etc.

You ad hominem his ideas, but back it with nothing. Jingoist? So it's jingoist to support noninterventionist foriegn policy and to be anti-domestic surveillance, anti-indefinite detention, anti- search without seizure...lol.

Jingoism is extreme patriotism in the form of aggressive
foreign policy.

It's the opposite of jingoism, you goober.

Also, jingoism is nationalism in the form of chauvenusm. Libertarians distinguish nationalism from patriotism...as nationalism is support for the government blindly (like Nazis for example), whereas patriotisam is support for the people (not to be confused with the state). Libertarians are anti-nationalist...hence our support for Wikileaks and Bradley Manning. You must defy the stae at times to be a patriot...especially when it concerns lies that get us into jingoism (aggressive wars) or exposing war crimes.

AS Mark Twain put it "patriotism is support of your country men all the time, and the government when it deserves it."

BTW. libertarians are anti-nationalist...patriotism isn't the same thing as nationalism. Hence our (and Paul's) support for exposing government lies that lead to aggressive wars anf war crimes.

As Samuel Clemons (Mark Twain) put it" patriotism is support for your countrymen all the time, and support for the government only when it deserves it."

The opposite of chauvenism, jingoism, and nationalism.

Please explain to me how transferring control of most of the federal governments functions to the states would improve things over the current system of sending representatives to DC to vote on my behalf? Can you show me proof that state governments are any more efficient than the federal government. Could you please do this without mentioning the Constitution? My state institutions have a tendency to be just as much of a boondoggle as the federal government is.

How would shifting my tax burden from federal to state income taxes save me money? Keep in mind that my states receives a large amount of federal funds for highways and infrastructure among other things.

My apologies, Mike, I didn't realize it was satire. Sometimes satire is mis-understood.

I must admit, viewed as satire, it's hilarious!

You're absolutely correct!

Don't you like freedom of speech? If I don't like Dr Paul's book, don't I have the right to express my opinion on Amazon? Isn't that what liberty is all about?

Paul supporters talk big about rights and freedoms, until someone who disagrees with them tries to exercise those rights, then they cry foul.

You complain of "abuse" of Amazon by the people posting multiple times, yet Paul supporters do precisely the same thing when they vote multiple times in online polls to artificially inflate Paul's popularity.

It's a dirty world out there, eh?

yet Paul supporters do precisely the same thing when they vote multiple times in online polls to artificially inflate Paul's popularity.

We're not abusing anything. Many polls aren't able to be voted on multiple times...but they choose to post polls that CAN be voted on multiple times, and them complain when we vote more than once. If they want one vote per polled person, then post polls that you can only vote once on...many sites do. Don't act like they want scientific polls. They want multiple hits to their websites...that's why they post polls that can voted on more than once. Get a clue and stop acting like our good organization makes us "abusers" or "cheaters".

If I don't like Dr Paul's book, don't I have the right to express my opinion on Amazon?

That'd be fine...IF you actually read the book you're reviewing. Judging by most of the comments on the BEST SELLERS Paul wrote, the spammers giving "their" opinion (actually neocon clones) didn't bother to crack open or buy those books. It's painfully transparent.

You can always spot the sheep when they insist on calling him "Dr. Paul." Yet they never deign to call Dr. Rachel Maddow by her title when they attack her...

What does that have anything to do with the fact Ron Paul is a doctor?

Well, she isn't a physician...and who takes anyone seriously who isn't a physician but insists on being called "doctor". You should respond with "okay Dr. GTFOver yourself".

Rachel doesn't ask to be called 'doctor' because her ego isn't bigger than her intellect...and she realizes that title rightfully belongs to physicians.

People who want to be called doctor and can't heal or diagnose people should stfu, really.

And chiropractors aren't real doctors either. I know it hurts, but the truth does that sometimes.

BTW, I support Ron Paul, and I never call him doctor.

He didn't deliver 4,000 babies...that's a fraud. He read them the Bill of Rights and they liberated themselves from the womb!

Toasty has trouble making coherent arguments. Just let him/her attempt to scare people with innuendo and misleading statements.

As for your question Toasty, I don't go on message boards and lie about Rachel Maddow. If I disagree with her I can explain why. Perhaps you could provide the same courtesy rather than snide comments?

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:H.R.539:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:H.R.724:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:H.J.Res78:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:hz278:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26sprb4Vi44

ProIndividual,

He didn't deliver 4,000 babies...that's a fraud. He read them the Bill of Rights and they liberated themselves from the womb!

OHHH that's a good one, I gotta remember that one....

Most of these idiots wouldn't say the things they say here to anyone's face, the Internet tends to allow people to leave their self respect behind.....

(primarily because they know they do not have to answer for their statements in real life)

Odd isn't it? All the fraud is coming from the GOP primaries & caucuses.... Who would have known?

payapal is a monopoly and gets exhobarrant fees for doing what most banks do for free- if these are the kind of people supporting Paul then they are no better then Romneys money

What is it that banks do for free? I haven't seen banks do anything for free in years.

payapal is a monopoly

Umm, it's actually not a monopoly. And even if it were...it isn't in the position it's in because it uses governemnt force to maintain market share. It has it's market share by giving a good service at a good price. Otherwise, if the prices were as bad you think they are, some other competitor would undercut their prices. But they don't...and no law or government regulation is preventing them from doing it. That just goes to show, their prices aren't ridiculous at all, and they aren't an enforced coercive state-mandated monopoly. This idea that every successful company with huge market share got their by being tyrants, and that they jack up prices when they get there even though competitors aren't stopped by regulation or government thugs from undercutting them and stealing customers is silly at best.

Steve Jobs was no tyrant.

George Lucas isn't the head of Sci-Fi monopoly.

No one is stopping you from providing a better service at a comparable price, or a comparable service at a lower price, than almost any internet company. There simply isn't a lot of regulation and tax online preventing entry into the market, and thereby competition.

I bet you supported SOPA and PIPA, huh?

If not, check yopur hypocrisy at the door.

He's not been doing well recently, but just wait until the caucuses... a few of them start on February 4th I believe.

Nevada caucuses on the 4th.

Paul didn't win the Iowa caucuses, he came in well behind Romney and Santorum, but ahead of Perry and Bachmnan. He will continue to come in 3rd or 4th through the entire campaign. Although his supporters are zealots, they are few in number and not enough to win the Republican nomination, let alone the General election.

He came very close to winning Iowa (they actually declined to recount his votes for fear of him winning) and I think it's entirely possible for him to win the upcoming caucuses. He's got lots of support from those who want smaller government and are tired of the regular crap. Not enough at the moment, but just you wait until he wins...

How many times has Paul run for President? How many times has he been successful? Answer those two questions and there you have it in a NUT shell.

Wagonmaster, becoming President isn't his only goal. He supports freedom and liberty as his main goal and is hoping to expand the base of voters that have that same view. Getting people to recognize the ridiculous power of the Fed is another goal. He is accomplishing these 3 goals simultaneously while campaigning.

He has already had quite an impact on how people (especially us younger voters) view the Fed.

How many times has Paul run for President?

This is dumbest question ever...you do realize that MANY Presidents ran the same amount of times Paul did, right?

3 times. This is the third. Same as Reagan, BTW.

Is everyone this low on arguments they have to keep going with "he's old", "he ran too many times", or "he's isolationist" (as they don't know wtf the word means apparently)?

Let me ask this: is he preferable to warmonger, torturer, domestic surveiller, NDAA indefinite detention signer, TSA cheerleader Obama?

If you answer 'no', just consider yourself one of the reasons I'm moving out of the country, along with all the other sheep who bah, bah, baaahhhh with you in this once great nation.

Obama = Bush

DemoCrip = RepubliBlood

Progressive is to Democrat as neoconservative is to Republican

Where are all the real liberals (not the same as progressive, despite the ignorant masses thinking they are the same philosophy and using the label with pride unaware of it's actual meaning)? where are all the conservatives (not to be confused with neoconservatives and moderates who hijacked the term in the 1960s after 100 years of basically noninterventionist foreign policy, respect for individual natural rights, and belief in limited small government in more than just welfare spending and rhetorical flourish)?

We're so doomed...lol.

PayPal charges merchants just 4%, and they don't charge any fees to the buyer. The remaining 6% is probably Ebay seller fees for listing. That 4% merchant fee is slightly higher than credit card or debit card merchant fees, but PayPal doesn't require a credit card reader, and setting up a PayPal account is free, and much easier than setting up a merchant card processing account. The result is small sellers would prefer PayPal, while large retailers prefer conventional credit cards.

You are not required to use PayPal to sell or buy on Ebay, nor are you required to use Ebay to use PayPal. It is convenient for Ebay buyers and sellers to use PayPal, however.

PayPal does not charge any fees for holding your money, though admittedly, they don't pay interest, either.

I do agree with you on the Republican goals, however. That's why I'm still supporting Obama.

Good idea, but unfortunately we can only elect from the piss poor crop of candidates they give us.

If more people believed in individual sovereignty we wouldn't have elections...they'd be anarchists like me and we'd abolish the state.

Individual sovereignty in a nutshell:

If you have the mental and physical ability to govern yourself, then you have the right to govern yourself, and as long as no one else is harmed or defrauded against their will in the process of your self governance, all compulsory external government is tyranny, logically. Those who give up their individual sovereignty by harmful or fraudelant actions on unwilling participants give up their right to self governance and may be governed by others like those born (or made so through misfortune) physically and mentally handicapped.

If more people believed in that, we'd have voluntary government among those sadomasochists who enjoy instituions like unions, churches, corporations, and governments telling them what to do (whether democratically, autocratically, theocratically, etc.), and anarchy (self government) for those like me who's prefer no more standard of law than abolished harm and fraud (a lack of a social contract membership). We'd end these geographic monopolies on law and rule, and go t a system where social contracts were treated like every other contract in life...voluntary, with clear terms and conditions to allow it to be voided if violated by parties, and only affecting those who choose to sign it; no one else!

If you think Anarchy is so great and wonderful, just try moving somewhere without a Government. Somalia hasn't had a functioning government in a decade.

That's right, you'd have to go to an impoverished broken down 3rd world place to live without Government. Every place that is the least bit prosperous has a government, and the more prosperous, the bigger the government is. Prosperity cannot be achieved without a good Government.

BTW, "Anarchy" doesn't mean "no more standard of law than abolished harm and fraud" or "a lack of a social contract membership", it means "No government".

If Paul is concerned about people losing rights, why is he Pro-Life & a republican?

They want fascist religious control over your rights & liberties & your rights controlled by the corporation,,, and no consumer protection which protects your individual liberties

If he's so concerned about freedoms & rights, get him to tell us just which ones he's lost

Jim is absolutely right. NOBODY can convince me that "Dr Paul" is in favor of "rights and liberty" when he supports the states' ability to take away people's civil liberties, freedom of choice, etc.

EZ,,, Nobody is afraid of Paul, saying anyone is, is like republicans trying to say were afraid of Christine O'Donnell

Look, he may very well be a nice person, but ---- He needs to study far more than just one economics book and apply that learning to real world economics, the dude is just out to lunch

His foreign policy is closer to Obama's "Smaller Footprint" than other conservatives who are screaming for war, but that is the only thing going for him

Please don't be ignorant and misrepresent abortion as "freedom of choice". That's disingenuous BS. Freedom of choice is not talking about freedom to have medical care, it's not about freedom of what to eat, drive, say, it's ONLY about abortion. So freedom of choice is just a misdirection from the real debate, abortion.

If you are pro-life you are exactly that, pro-LIFE. You are not the least interested in restricting a woman's choice, you're just opposed to ending a baby's life because of convenience. If you are pro-choice you are simply pro-ABORTION. If you are so noble in your aims, yet unable to even be honest about what you're fighting for, then maybe you shouldn't be fighting for it.

Ridiculous abortion activists trying to sound like they give a crap about women.

Ron Paul has repeatedly stated that he will leave abortion, etc. up to state laws. There will NOT be anything on the federal level to restrict it. Therefore him being pro-life amounts to little more than a personal opinion, albeit a very influential one.

Inthe- Speak for yourself, I happen to be pro-life for myself, but pro-choice for everyone else, because I don't want any government, fed or state to tell any Women what to do with her reproductive rights. Ron Paul should agree with me, he also doesn't really believe in civil rights! He will never be President!

I'm pro-choice, but we all have better things to worry about right now. Abortion won't come up as a major issue when everyone's focused on the economy and foreign policy.

It's hard to take someone seriously when they say that Paul "defends" liberty when his voting record is filled with anti-First Amendment votes and his statements are roundly anti-civil rights.

Hummbird - it's not a civil right to kill a baby. It's not a "choice" about the woman's body, it's a choice to kill a baby or not. Grow a pair and take a stand. This is not some wishy washy issue, either it's right or wrong.

Toasty - Feel free to give some specifics instead of the vague statements. it's hard to take YOU seriously when you make allegations but don't back it with specifics.

Cam, Dr. Paul is pro life. That is what he believes, but he doesnt feel that the US GOVERNMENT. Has the Constitutional Right to make that decision for you. He believes what the constitution gives us as FRE AMERICANS. He doesnt want the government to be able to take that choice away from anyone because it is not given that power by law. Dr Paul believes that it should be up to the states to determine and what the people want as a majority. Please think about what you want to say and ask yourself if its your idea or what is popular. I for one believe what he wants to accomplish is not what America wants to hear, but he has the right idea.

Ron Paul believes that this would fall under Article 10 of the Constitution. Since it is not directly included the Constitution power of the States would be where the laws would be addressed. Since different States have different opinions on the topic there would be a patch work of laws throughout the country.

Happily, ITS:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:H.R.539:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:H.R.724:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:H.J.Res78:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:hz278:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26sprb4Vi44

1. To limit the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, and for other purposes.
2. To amend title 28, United States Code, to limit Federal court jurisdiction over questions under the Defense of Marriage Act.
3. To secure the people's right to acknowledge God according to the dictates of conscience: Neither the United States nor any State shall establish any official religion, but the people's right to pray and to recognize their religious beliefs, heritage, or traditions on public property, including schools, shall not be infringed. Neither the United States nor any State shall require any person to join in prayer or other religious activity, prescribe school prayers, discriminate against religion, or deny equal access to a benefit on account of religion.'.
4. Amendment prohibits funds from being used to enforce the judgement of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana in the case of Russelburg v. Gibson County, decided January 31, 2005, concerning a display of a monument of the Ten Commandments.
   

I'm not getting where any of these are anti-civil rights or anti-First Amendment Toasty.

I bet you couldn't ride a bike 25 miles in 100 degree Texas heat and humidity with "grandpa". But please, carry on your non-sense demonstrations of lacking mental acuity.

No, the real reason The Media ignores Dr Ron is that he is simply irrelevant. He comes in dead last in primaries and his supporters whine that the headlines the next day are about the winner instead of him.

The few times that Dr Ron finished well, there were many headlines about him. But his supporters choose to ignore that and stick to the "media blackout" story.

Paul gets exactly the media coverage that his performance warrants. As does everybody else. It is the media's job to report on newsworthy events (coming last in a vote is not newsworthy; winning is), not be Ron Paul's personal publicist. The Ron Paul crowd doesn't understand this and it drives them nuts.

Not a flipfloper like the rest of the LEMMINGS !

Name calling , Citizenearth, does not contribute much to a political discussion. Our country is in a crisis and we need a smart , healthy discussion ,not sewer stuff like name calling.

Joe ----A smart, healthy discussion about policies in the U.S..? You are in denial. Slogans and name calling is our standard. Witness teabaggers.

Can you explain why you think he's a crackpot? His campaign platform is ending the wars, limited government, no IRS, adherence to the constitution, balanced budgets and reducing the debt. Only in modern America can that be considered "crackpot".

Let's not forget that the constitution has never failed while it was being followed.

The few times that Dr Ron finished well, there were many headlines about him. But his supporters choose to ignore that and stick to the "media blackout" story.

For Ron Paul, "finished well" means coming in 3rd. His supporters are zealots, but there are not enough of them to get above 20%.

His campaign platform may be a snow job like that, ITS, but his voting record speaks for itself. Not to mention his own statements on things like the Civil Rights Act...

Again Toasty, some specifics, or is it too difficult to come up with anything? His voting record does speak for itself, he's consistent. Your reference to Civil Right Act is an attempt at misdirection, he's explained it several times and his opposition to it had to do with property rights of individuals over an unconstitutional government intrusion. Your deliberate attempt to mislead says more about your agenda.

The reason the Media ignores Ron Paul is simple...He's a crackpot

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN!

Come one, come all!

Allow me to introduce you to our special uninited guest!

Here he is, the white flag of debate, the perfect expression of your lack of intellect and arguments, the ultimate statement of "I'm just not that birght"....

...I give you....

AD HOMINEM!

The reason the Media ignores Ron Paul is simple...He's a crackpot

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN!

Come one, come all!

Allow me to introduce you to our special uninvited guest!

Here he is, the white flag of debate, the perfect expression of your lack of intellect and arguments, the ultimate statement of "I'm just not that bright"....

...I give you....

AD HOMINEM!

EDIT: Sorry about the double post, I have no clue how that happened, and no clue why one appraently posted long before the other one. Chalk it up to a malfuntion in the verficiation/anti-spam program Captcha.

Obama brought us from "Bust to Recovery", he's dealing with the housing crises as Republicans say let it fail, he ended the Cold War policies while conservative candidates are fighting for longer Cold Wars, he speaks to the People instead of just to the hedge funds & the Uber Rich --- And his military cuts leave our military stronger & better funded than the last conservative administration

Perry,,, What are you bitching about? Americans even have more "Freedoms & Liberties" than they did in 2007 & "We the Consumer" are protected

Maybe - but the change we need gos far past Obama he is playing the hand he was dealt

but the hole deck needs to be swaped out

While Obama was dealt a bad hand, he has not done a good job. There is NO recovery so far. National debt is skyrocketing. He's fishing for yet another war (Iran). He signed NDAA, so there are LESS freedoms and liberties. Guantanamo remains open for business. Jim, you are truly clueless in your posts.

Bush Jr sold the people a lie, fear, discontent, and pure B.S for 8 years and no one ever questioned his motive's or reasons, now it is easier to blame President Obama in order to cover Bush Jr's butt who was a total disgrace to this country. Now the right wants a person who is a flying under wear bandit and a person who is a serial sex addict towards females, what is coming next Ron Paul having sex with Sandra Bullock? The whole republican party is in disarray and you have to thank Bush Jr and the tea party for all of the insanity past and present. Obama2012.

Obama brought us from "Bust to Recovery", he's dealing with the housing crises as Republicans say let it fail

Can you show me where any Keynesian like Obama predicted the housing bubble/bust and the subsequent PREDICTABLE fall of the economy? No, you can't, because it didn't happen. Bernanke missed it, as the Audit of the FED showed via his internal memos.

In fact, the only politicians that saw it coming, was a free market fan by the name of Ron Paul. He knew it would happen exactly how it did, said as much on the House Floor in speeches MANY rimes in SHOCKING detail, and on television.

You say Obama is trying to fix housing? Are you INSANE? He can't fix what he doesn't undertsand! He doesn't comprehend how it got broken to begin with...lol.

What caused to collapse was totally predictable...and was predicted. All your hindsight Monday morning quarterbacking about regulation and stimulus is non-sense.

What caused the collapse WAS too low of interest rates for too long held by the Federal Reserve and too much inflation via an over abundant money supply (again via the Federal Reserve). It caused people to get loans they wouldn't have gotten if interest rates were higher, credit they wouldn't have gotten had bubbles not occured in the housing industry due to this overextension of credit, higher debt to income ratios in the credit market, and overall moral hazard in the economy. The idea you can fix this systemic issue by ignoring it (or worse; doubling down on it) is non-sense!!!

Housing prices need to fall. The debt on the market needs to be liquidated. This isn't bad for poor people and the middle class you class war loving oaf! It's GOOD!!!! How are cheap houses for new buyers bad?!? Sure, those in homes they own still will lose value...but that's the ACTUAL VALUE! Not the illusory value created by government interference into interest rates and money supply held far above market rates and values.

If you want this same thing to happen to your kids, please by all means follow warmonger neoconservative NDAA indefinite detention Keynesian Obama right off the cliff. If you want this to stop, save our kids this same mess later, and to have sane economy, think about decentralizing the control of interest rates to the market, and money supply to the local banks instead of a centrral command and control monopoly cartel. We had past crashes that occured under such a system...and they lasted 6 monthes to a year MAXIMUM! The correction is severe and quick, and then everything goes back to a solid economy. The effects of the collapse are felt only locally, not widespread nationally, and the perpetrators are easily found and prosecuted (bankers printing too much money, as usual). Counterfeiting used to be against the law! Noe fraction al banking is the norm (they hold only 10% or less in reserves for every dollar they loan out!). When you legalize fraud and harm and call that a solution I say you're insane.

seems fishy

AHA!!----Another conspiracy theory-----check under your bed.

It would have been nice if they had provided the NAME of the credit card company so that we could at least embarrass them a little.

Charles I am not generally into conspiracy theories but it does make me wonder what exactly happened here. I have a question as to why a credit card company has an such an integral place here. Would there not have been someone other than the credit card company responcible for filing this? If I were 1 day late on my credit card payment I would be charged interest plus a late fee. Should we not expect the same from them. The story raises several red flags that I would be interested in knowing.

Hopefully we eventually get beyond bigotry. I'm pessimistic about that since it involves education, the lack of it fuels bigotry. People have to learn how to communicate without the "blocks to listening"

TM1(SS) Retired

Reading the postings on these kinds of articles, it sure looks like bigotry is alive and well here in the US.

Additionally the lack of respect, name-calling and dirty campaign ads is worse every year. If people cannot express themselves any better than that, we as a people are doomed.

Listen to what the candidates say and watch what they do - don't project!

Which one of them actually has ideas, plans to try and help the country and which ones are just throwing bombs?

The rEVOLution has been compromised! Peter Thiel is an agent of the BILDERBERG GROUP/NWO!

hxxp://www.bilderbergmeetings.org/governance.html

Why this might be an interesting topic what does this have to do with the story?

It would be better for the good Bishop of Michigan to be addressing the tens of thousand of living children who are and were raped and tortured by the clergy, instead of lying,transferring criminal priests.If the Hospitals receive no federal funds .they can do what they want. A Democratic country with hundreds of religions can t possibly accomodate every single request in public accomadations. This is a secular country, where everyone is free to believe any thing they want also long as you don t intrude on any one elses rights . Living children have rights also and deserve the protection of the civil and criminal courts. Prime Minister of Ireland Enda Kenney stated it very well in his letter to the Pope when he recalled the Irish ambassador to the Vatican.

If the Catholic hospitals only hired Catholics and only treated Catholics, then this would be a non-issue. But those "Catholic" hospitals hire lots of non-Catholics and treats lots of non-Catholics, and, really, does the Catholic church have the right to impose Catholic rules on non-Catholics?

Nope.

If the Catholic church can't stand the notion of some of their hospital employees and patients not following their rules, then they should get out of the Hospital business, leave it to the secular hospital companies and non-profit community hospitals.

Because Ron is a foolish old man!! The Republican Party by definition is powered by money - Ron has none!!

He spent very little time in FL because it was a winner take all state, so it was wasted money. Please understand what is going on before you post.

David, you obviously just lied and have not looked into him. Your example of WW 2 is incorrect. All Paul says is Congress must declare war, that is it. If you have to lie to fool people then you really have no point to offer.

Ron Paul has stated on multiple occasions has stated that our defence stays at our boarders. While I fully believed that we would have engaged at war with Japan we did not declare war with Germany until they declared war with us. If you looked at US history back when England was engaged with Germany President Roosevelt took the extraordinary act of getting around US law at the time to supply England by "lending" them the supplies. The laws at the time in the United States were isolationist and aiding England in the war was technically illegal. Under a Ron Paul administration and isolationist policies this would never have happened. Where would England have been then if we waited until Japan had chosen to attack us. I think that you might be able to look that up.

The USSR contributed over 80% of the war effort in WW2, so whether the US entered the war or not the outcome would have been the same. The only difference is that had the US stayed home, the USSR would have been weaker after the war and would not have been as capable of menacing the world.

Also, had the US stayed out of WW2, than the USSR would not have been able to steal US nuclear technology with which they threatened to annihilate us throughout the cold war.

Stalin murdered far more people (Jewish and otherwise) and was far more dangerous than Hitler. The US entering the war in Europe only made a bad situation worse.

If a Ron Paul had been president instead of Roosevelt, the world would likely be a better place today.

If Hitler had not invaded the Soviet Union, but instead upheld the German Soviet non-aggression pact signed in 1939, the world would be a very different place right now. Fortunately for the rest of us, Hitler was an arrogant little twit.

David - Once again, NOT true. He has NEVER said our defense stays at our borders, not once. You either don't understand or deliberately mislead. He has said he doesn't believe in over 900 bases in 130 countries, but rather a strong national defense "based" in our borders. He has no problem going to war, but Congress must declare war as the Constitution demands, no more Presidents doing whatever they want.

You need to either become better informed or stop lying, I honestly can't tell which it is with you.

Jem I don't quite understand. Both Germany and Japan had their own research programs in nuclear weaponry. If not us it could very well been someone else. If not for the assistance from the United States, in supplies at least, Europe would have fallen. Hitlers attention could be directed totally on the USSR and the outcome may have very well been different. If Hitler had chosen not to be stupid we might be speaking German today. Without the assistance of our allies we most certainly have been.

In The Shelter Ron Paul is, amongst other things, an isolationist. He would never involved ourselves in a war that we were not directly threatened by. When Japan attacked we may have involved ourselves fully in the war but what we would not have been in a position to ramp up for the war. Any delay in preparing for war could have lead to more lives lost than there already was . Because of the fore site of President Roosevelt we were ready when the war came to us. If not for our supplying England for there needs we had our factories already set up to go in. If not for our supplying of England do you honestly believe that they would still be around as a free county. England fought as hard as they could but without supplies they would been very much in trouble.

Just a note it has long been known that Hitler had plans to attack the United States but he needed to finish with England first. Pretending that we can hide behind our oceans does not always work.

In the Shelter until the day of according to one of his staffers intended to vote no to the resolution to allow President Bush to commit troops into Afghanistan. What changed his mind I don't know but that was his intention. What would it have taken to involve us militarily?