Jason Why on earth would you oppose a treaty that does nothing more than hold both sides to a free trade commitment? This is the part of the Paulistas that makes no sense. Dogma overwhelms reality. This is why people think you're isolationists -- you reflexively oppose treaties because they are international agreements. (Ooooo, scary.) Paul talks about pulling out of NATO and other mutually beneficial treaties because he somehow thinks that a properly ratified agreement that binds the United States is unconstitutional OR that a treaty that other countries agreed to somehow amounts to the U.S. ordering them around. And none of the Paulbots ever bothers to explain the incongruities.

Akston "And none of the Paulbots ever bothers to explain the incongruities." I know my posts above were a bit long to read, but perhaps you could review them when you get a moment. I resist governmentally controlled trade because, as Congressman Paul wrote in one of the links I posted: "Free trade is about free markets, which means limiting government interference in the marketplace. We face high hurdles for the philosophy of less government in the foreseeable future because the Congressional trade debate is now limited to the voices of outright protectionists and those who, in the name of free trade, promote a regime of managed trade which threatens the sovereignty upon which our fundamental liberties will always depend." His position, and mine, is to oppose trade agreements which would allow American free markets to be regulated by international bodies or a select few American corporations with "pull". I can see that this position is a frustration for you, and I'm sorry it hits a nerve. However, this post and my prior posts in this thread may be as much as I can do to "explain the incongruities" in my position. The rest will be up to you.

PatHMV Akston, I don't see that you answered my question about the Mona Lisa and stolen property. I agree we can't afford to be the "policeman to the world," though I'm sure we wildly disagree over the exact parameters of what that means we can and can't do. But my question is not about that. My question is whether it should be against the law, in America, to sell an item which was stolen from somebody in another country.

z Whoa...Obama, Clinton, McCain are the ones fornicating under the covers with corporate America at the expense of the majority of the rest of us consumers. Wake up America!

z You must be a genius to understand that Ron Paul had no real support with all that money that topped all candidates in the last quarter of 2007. The reason he didn't get votes is b/c it is an objective fact that he got zero percent coverage in the two weeks leading up to Super Tuesday. Before that he got less than 2% and usually 0% for every week of the election cycle. Check the Project for Excellency in Journalism for yourself. The story was also run on NPR stating the same.

PatHMV We are awake, z, and that's what's so annoying about most Paul supporters. You think if only we really, truly understood his positions, we'd be in favor of them, and we're only opposed to him because the "mainstream" has written him off. Wrong. As I demonstrated above in the area of free trade, some of us really do understand what he's saying, and we think he's nuts, and his policy preferences are recipes for disaster. Stop telling us to "wake up" about the politicians "fornicating under the covers with corporate America" (yes, that evil corporate America that employs so many, many people). We don't agree with you, and we're not saying that just because we're "asleep." Dr. Paul is a rabid idealogue, and like most or all idealogues, he thinks that if only the world would adopt HIS plan, everything would be just rosy, and he pays scant attention to actual evidence of the nature of the real world.

nuts you speak of Let me just rephrase your entire article. Here is what you meant to say: "I am a complete idiot.  I don't believe in freedom.  I think overspending to the point of complete economical disaster is a great idea.  I think we should keep sending troops to slaughter for no reason is perfect for our country.  I think spying on Americans is wonderful since, for no other reason, I am voyeuristic.  I think education is stupid.  I think throwing money out the window on a war against drugs is worth it.  I think wasting tax dollars on drug addicts in prison, whom I fully know need rehab is good for society.  I will gladly pay more taxes in order to pad the pockets of people who don't give a shit about me or society.  I like the government controlling everything I do.  I won't vote for Ron Paul, he stands for freedom, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; you know, things I don't believe in." who did you say the nuts were?

Tully LMAO.

LilBrew Our current form of election (government) is mob rules. The majority of people elect officials that most closely hold their own values, instead of electing officials that will due their job (to protect and preserve the constitution). That already makes us a democracy, and we have seen this by the slow erosion of our civil liberties. We were formed as a constitutional republic to prevent exactly what we have now, so the majority of people couldn't take away the rights of the minority. I personally would like to see some form of lottery for office, probably with some form of constitutional exam, so we don't get idiots in office. Then a two to four year, mandatory, constitutional training course for them, and a two to four year term limit. I don't know maybe it wouldn't work, but what we have now is not working well either.

PatHMV What Paul wants is to take us back to the sort of legal structure and government we had when we were a primarily agrarian society, before the historically unprecedented levels of economic growth our own country, and most of the Western world, experienced beginning in the 1930s and 40s... which is also, of course, about the same time (coincidentally or not) that we went off the gold standard and started imposing more of the economic regulations which Dr. Paul and his supporters despise so much. Has this made us simply fat, dumb, and happy, with little concern for our civil liberties? Personally, I don't think so. I am certain I would rather be living today than in 1940, or even 1950.

Akston PatHMV wrote: "My question is whether it should be against the law, in America, to sell an item which was stolen from somebody in another country." Yes. I have a question for you. Whom do you support for President, and why?

AnonJew "together they are bashing Bush and Jews" I am a Jew and support Paul, So I was bashing myself huh? Yeah, us Paul supporters just a bunch of anti-semites and self loathing jews. Crazy huh? You're an idiot. Go back to school and learn about journalism. Also, learn about commodity based currency systems vs. Fiat currency systems. I also urge you to spend a day reading about the Federal Reserve and it's purpose and how central banks that are really private banks under the guise as such, are really a detriment to a society rather than form positive impacts. I would also say looking into the Non interventionist policy that Paul espouses is not only good for the U.S, but the entire world. I would hope someone from outside the U.S would be applauded for finally admitting we are an empire. I would like to add one more thing. Paul has been picking up delegates at the county and state levels and is actually going into the convention with many more delegates than the media has let on. McCain only has 658 pledged delegates and that is not enough to win the majority in the first vote of the convention, which means it will be brokered.

Akston PatHMV,  Someone as articulate and opinionated as yourself has no candidate he supports?  No direction to move towards, only candidates to rail against?  Are they all evil?  If so, how do you establish which is the lesser of those evils?  Or do you simply abdicate any responsibility and refrain from voting altogether (assuming you're a citizen and voting is an option for you).  I'll admit there are issues where Ron Paul and I differ.  This is a much smaller set than the issues where the other candidates and I differ.  So, do you have a "minimum differences" candidate, or are you just taking easy shots at folks who have the courage to express a preference?

Jason You're being rather disingenuous, Akston.  Why ask people for their preferred candidate if not to change the subject away from defending yours to attacking theirs? We've seen that pattern from the Paul-bots before, so that might be why Pat is wary.

Akston (The above post formatted as intended, I hope) Jason, Perhaps we see too many disingenuous posts and come to expect them. I assure you, my interest is genuine. I don't see Paul as some sort of savior or saint. I simply see him as the best choice, given my interests. I can spend (and have spent) a majority of this thread explaining some of the reasons I prefer Paul's positions. I have not read every post, but I don't recall a single constructive comment suggesting a positive alternative candidate. If I've missed it, I offer my apologies and ask that you refer me to it. Perhaps before you continue to disparage posters who "disingenuously" state the candidate they prefer and take the time to defend, in detail, his policies as selected by his opposition, you could be genuine enough to state who you support and why. Finding fault with national candidates does not require a Rhodes Scholar. I assure you, I have no interest in cheap shots at whomever you or PatHMV might support. It's not worth the time. I'm just looking for genuine information, genuine conviction, and genuine alternatives for America's path. So, do you have something genuine and constructive you can add? Is "Paulbot" really the most worthy contribution you can throw in? I would guess from your writing that you might be capable of more consideration and sophistication than that. Am I wrong?

Steve Some people just refuse to see that 800lb. gorilla standing in the room. Our currency is on the verge of collapse due to the current policies that you seem to so staunchly support. Each year the government of the US borrows as much money as it possibly can from our own citizens, and of course from foreign nations such as China. Unfortunately, as we've seen over the last half-decade or so, we're no longer able to borrow enough to cover the budgetary shortfalls. The government, instead of demanding that spending be reigned in, has adopted a policy of debasing the currency, essentially taxing you through the back-door by reducing your purchasing power. The result being that over the last 6 years or so, the US dollar has lost about 40% of its value. Foreign nations who once held our dollars in their reserves are now dumping them like hot potatoes, making the problem even worse by flooding the market. People are losing faith in the American dollar and for a very good reason. So, if not the gold-standard, what, precisely would you suggest in order to prevent the inevitable disaster that's not as far away as many would prefer for you to think? I don't necessarily support the gold-standard specifically, but, surely, we can't just keep blundering along like this. Now we have three major candidates left in the race, all of whom are proposing additional deficit spending as part of their platforms. Evidently, none of them feel that the government is spending too much already, at least, not really. They sure talk about it a lot, but look at their programs and proposals and do the math. As I see it, one of two things needs to happen. Either we need to back our currency up with something other than the government saying "sure, it's worth something", or the budget needs to be balanced to keep from having to continue what amounts to legalized counterfeiting. If we fail in this, I fear what's to come for us.

LibertyNH people who support Ron Paul understand the concept of freedom in the spirit the founders of this country (and the constitution they created) intended, the rest (those who support facist republicans and socialist democrats) are sponge-heads who are content to live in a facist/socialist police state who's power and ability to monitor/control it's population is far beyond anything george orwell could have imagined. ironically they look to government (and candidates like McCain, Clinton & Obama) to help them but all they're going to get from them is empty promises, economic ruin and continued drift away from everything that made America great...

LibertyNH re PatHMV:   "I support the Constitution, and civil liberties" "What I don’t support is lunatic interpretations of any of those things which are likely to set our economy back to the stone age" good examples of how clueless most Americans are about their own country and the problems that face them. if one supports the constitution then one supports constitutional liberties, not cvil liberties. constitutional liberties are unalienable, they cannot be easily altered or revoked. constitutional liberties are supported and protected by common law, under common law there are no victimless crimes (crimes against the state). civil liberties on the other hand are based on civil (roman) law, your "civil rights" are dictated at will by government they can be altered or revoked at will at any time by any one of the hundreds of government agencies that exists to rule and regulate everything but the size, color and smell of our bowel movements. currently there are about 60 million laws, rules, codes and regulations that every American is expected to know and abide by (ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law).  so which do you support mr. spongehead? constitutional rights or civil rights? and which system of law is actually closer to the stone age? the one that was forced on us by big government or the one that people actually fought for? ok second bit is important for two reasons, the idea that the constitution has different "iterpretations" and that following it will bring us back to the stone age (or 18th century) economically speaking. first, the constitution was written to be short, simple and concise, you do not need to be a lawyer to understand it or your rights (that was the idea), if it says "congress shall make no law..." abridging your right to own a gun, your right to travel freely etc.  that's fairly straightforward, how many ways can that be "interpreted"? second, as most people miss the concept that our transition from common law to back to civil law (based on roman law) was like taking all the progress made in the last 2000 years (concepts like liberty, rule of law, not men) and flushing it down the crapper, they are also completely ignorant of the fact that the monetary system thats choking the life out of America is the one the founders of this country sought (and fought) to free us from in the first place. they all warned about it, Thomas Jefferson's comes to mind here: "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."   and what Jefferson warned about is what we see happening all around us. And all the spongeheads (like pathmv) think of this as "progress" and that we can't go back to the "stone age" so they call Ron Paul a kook for wanting to return to sound money and the principles of the constitution, they complain about endless war and inflation, taxes etc. and then support the candidates that will give them more of everything they complain about... spongeheads...