The very last line in the article tell is all:

However much his partisans may complain, it's not just the media that are ignoring Ron Paul.

Finally, an open admission by someone in the media that they are ignoring Ron Paul.

I'm in Illinois. I can't stand Willard Romney and the thought of voting for Santorum make me sick. I'd vote for Sarah Palin before I'd vote for Newt Gingrich. While I don't agree with all of his positions, I will vote for Dr. Ron Paul. He is the closest we will get to an honest politician from either party.

Ron Paul 2012 !!!!

I'd vote for Ron Paul in a heartbeat if he got the nomination, but we all know he wont and that has been pretty clear for a quite some time b/c any kind of meaningful change is not in the best interest of any number of corporate and industrial entities.

His rational thinking about staying out of other countrys affairs and No wars and closing overseas military bases makes way to much sense.

Mabe its his thinking of shrinking the size of government and tackling the dept(wich is insane)the other candidates and Obama hardly mention it.The country is essentially bankrupt.

Free global trade has only been a blessing for the rich.Who close factorys here and move them to china for cheap labor and little regulations.We cant compete with such low wages and these people are to poor to buy our products.We need someone to look out for americans.

He is good man and is consistant.

@UnitedStates1776 how can you agree with only those 2 ideas of Paul's? All of his other ideas are based on the same exact principle..... freedom and liberty.

First of all, it doesn't say that he has only been tweeted about 200k times. So I'm not sure why you are trying to pretend it says that to make a point.

This article does a good job of showing that the media coverage about Paul is reflective of how often people talk about him in general. There is no conspiracy here, just writing about what people want to hear about. And there are still plenty of articles about Paul. If he doesn't win it won't be because of the media, it will be because of where people's interests are.

@UnitedStates1776 how can you agree with only those 2 ideas of Paul's? All of his other ideas are based on the same exact principle..... freedom and liberty.

Yea, abolishing the FDA sounds like freedom and liberty.

Let's go back to the days of meat-packing as per "The Jungle".

The article uses three sources for airing a story of Paul....all of which are from the same AP source! They asked who would he support, not what would you do. You media folks can use your words just like you can edit a story visually, to exclude someone of make them irrelevant. That's what has been happening all along.

We who believe can hold our heads high knowing that we were and are fighting for truth and vision, and not following the herd to slaughter. Go ahead, keep voting for failed policies and stolen freedoms, you deserve them since you don't notice what's happining to you OR the country.

Ruken...The smell of lanolin told me that you were coming. Don't do any research yourself outside of party lines, you might learn something.

I've started making more comments about Romney, Obama, and Santorum... and you can add those to that list.

But my comments are totally negative about them. Do you ever wonder about the message and not the name???

This article is total BS. The fact that the media neglected Ron Paul as compared to other candidates who finished worse than him after his second place finish in the Iowa straw polls is well documented. From there they launched no-substance Herman Cain to first place after a straw poll win in Florida, but I couldn't find any articles here or elsewhere about Paul's substantial straw poll wins. Who could forget the ABC foreign policy debate in which Dr. Paul got under 2 minutes of speaking time? Reputable sources have noted that there have been fewer articles about Ron Paul than all of the other candidates this cycle. Sure Paul's numbers have gone down, and they're still going down, but it's because the only articles about Ron Paul are trash like this.

I don’t understand the Ron Paul phenomenon. This man doesn't offer any real solutions to any real problems, he talks like a libertarian but acts like a Republican. The thing that disturbs me most is his son Rand Paul; this guy is nothing more than a mean spirited school yard bully. I remember during the 2010 election how he surrounded himself with thugs that liked to beat up little girls and stomp their heads into the curb just for carrying a sign that their boss Rand Paul didn't like. Maybe this father and son team would feel more comfortable in a country like Syria because there violent against innocent citizens is considered acceptable behavior.

Ruken...The smell of lanolin told me that you were coming. Don't do any research yourself outside of party lines, you might learn something.

That's weird, because research I read says he wants to abolish the FDA, CIA, repeal the Civil Rights Act, he thinks that the Interstate Highway System is unconstitutional, etc.

tl;dr: This dude is nuttier than a pecan pie.

Your analyst suck.

I think that you're just reinforcing the point of the article which is that Ron Paul supporters see only what they want to see.

BigAl... wow, that is quite the metaphor. Too bad it is pure rhetoric.

It's possible that Ron Paul's campaign has already been derailed by the media (lack of coverage back then + voter fraud). It's also hard to believe that Paul hasn't been tweeted a whole lot.

Then again, it's what happens at the convention that truly matters. Nobody knows for sure how many delegates Dr. Paul has.

the only one crazier is his son .. the whacko nut doesnt fall far from the tree

Wow. And there are die hard Ron Paul supporters on here STILL claiming a media blackout! I think the only blackout here is with your willingness to get over your own perceptions and look at reality.

Facts: Ron Paul has run for President before, has had campaign billboards in major cities for the past several years, has given multiple nationally televised interviews on most days throughout this primary, and has participated in over 20 nationally televised debates. In what world is that a "blackout?" Even giving in and saying he might get less coverage than the other candidates, people are fully aware who Ron Paul is. And EVERY single candidate who has been in this primary has been in the lead, other than Ron Paul. Pretty sure if his message was resonating with voters, he wouldn't be losing when people went to the booths.

Stick a fork in that primitive racist--he's done.

The thing is many people have read and listened to what Ron Paul has talked about and the SANE people have concluded he is a total whackjob. People stop listening when they make that conclusion and it is a VALID conclusion. Many of the rabid Paulies focus on just a couple of things they like and for some reason ignore the total insanity of the rest of what he says. You have to take the totality of what the candidate talks about and quite frankly Ron Paul is a few fries short of a Happy Meal.

Exactly. Ron has a few good ideas and positions, but they are completely outweighed by his dangerous proposals and unconstitutional views on other matters. You can't just cherry pick.

Many of Ron Pauls supporters that cry about the media are the same ones who cry about everything. boo hoo

I think the media is giving this guy quite enough coverage. There are two types of people associated with Ron Paul...those that believe he is way too nutty to be President, and those that don't know it yet. He would have been a great President in 1822, but absolutely not by today's standards. His good ideas (he does have a couple) are overshaddowed by his off-the-wall ideas that just don't resonate with wider ranging audiences. He shouldn't be getting any more coverage than Pat Paulsen did in the 1970's....even though I think Dr. Paul is funnier.

The Paulites are certainly obsessed and enthusiastic about their candidate, most saying that "Ron Paul is our only hope", and they've been like that for several Presidential elections now. Their obsession leads them to think that Paul ought to be more popular than he is, thus their scapegoating of the media instead of admitting that the Ron Paul political philosophy lacks appeal for most voters.

Problem is, the Paulites are a small minority even in the Republican party, their political philosophy would be a better fit in the Libertarian party, but Paul already ran as a Libertarian party candidate and got nowhere, so Paul and his followers joined the Republicans hoping to better their odds of winning with a better known and better organized party.

For most of us, Paul makes for an entertaining sideshow of little political consequence.

You got that right, Sandy. I had some respect, at least, for RP until I saw him in a photo with Don Black, who heads up a white supremacist website.

What would a libertarian football game look like?

Heh, you can always spot a Ron Paul sheep by their insistence on everyone calling him "Dr. Paul."

Strangely, they never seem to extend the same courtesy to such accomplished persons as Dr. Maddow...

Maybe the reason Ron Paul isn't being mentioned much is that Santorum is way more bat@!$%# insane.

The other candidates may be mentioned more frequently but the article says that the number is measured, not wether it was a positive or negative comment. Knowing this, it is rather irresponsible to portray the survey results in the manner that this article does.

Congratulations media. You have stabbed your fellow man in the back yet again.

Ruken, I don't quite get the reference about "The Jungle," but I can attest to multiple occasions when the agencies that supposed to protect us are useless bureaucracies, sometimes staffed or managed by the dubious characters crossing over from the industries the agency is supposed to regulate. BGH, FDA and Monsanto ring a bell. Not to mention currently pink slime "meat," the substance that contains harmful chemicals, is approved by the FDA and does not require labelling because the chemical is not an ingredient but a process. Why keep agencies in place that are obviously failing?

Adam - Your statement about agencies failing to properly execute their function is not a refutation of the need for the agency. Said position would be an example of an either-or fallacy. Or to coin a colloquial phrase "throwing the baby out with the bath water."

However, to answer your question - You would keep the agencies in place because the theory that companies will police themselves is arguably false due to numerous examples to the contrary AND the potential that the agencies can do better always exists.

The shuttering of those agencies would need to be done in conjunction with other policy changes. Changes Ron Paul has proposed. For example the EPA has ruled that fracking is in no way a damage to the environment, now you don't have to be a scientist to know that pumping chemicals to explode underground is not a good thing. The thing independent scientist have found that it is detrimental to the environment. It would seem that the EPA has failed it's function. In closing the EPA we would have a void of regulations and polluters would run rampant (I agree with you that self regulation in our current system of corporatism would not work). Now this is where the conjunction of other policy changes come in. We increase the rights of property owners and make it easier to sue companies that pollute the owners property. At the moment the EPA's stance on fracking actually protects the polluters (the same could be said about other agencies' regulations and stances'). The EPA has sanctioned their practices and therefore shields them from being sued by people who's water and property has been contaminated. Conjunctions is the optimal word here because, yes, I agree industries will not regulate themselves.

@No Alias Adam: Google the novel 'The Jungle' by Upton Sinclair:

The Jungle is a 1906 novel written by journalist Upton Sinclair.^[1] Sinclair wrote the novel with the intention of portraying the life of the immigrant in the United States, but readers were more concerned with the large portion of the book pertaining to the corruption of the American meatpacking industry during the early 20th century, and the book is now often interpreted and taught as a journalist's exposure of the poor health conditions in this industry. The novel depicts in harsh tones poverty, absence of social programs, unpleasant living and working conditions, and hopelessness prevalent among the working class, which is contrasted with the deeply-rooted corruption on the part of those in power. Sinclair's observations of the state of turn-of-the-twentieth-century labor were placed front and center for the American public to see, suggesting that something needed to be changed to get rid of American wage slavery.^[2]

The novel was first published in serial form in 1905 in the socialist newspaper Appeal to Reason. It was based on undercover work done in 1904: Sinclair spent seven weeks gathering information while working incognito in the meatpacking plants of the Chicago stockyards at the behest of the magazine's publishers.^[3] He then started looking for a publisher who would be willing to print it in book form. After five rejections by publishers who found it too shocking for publication, he funded the first printing himself.^[3] A shortened version of the novel was published by Doubleday, Page & Company on February 28, 1906 and has been in print ever since. [snip]

"

Upton Sinclair originally intended to expose "the inferno of exploitation [of the typical American factory worker at the turn of the 20th Century],"^[4] but the reading public instead fixated on food safety as the novel's most pressing issue. In fact, Sinclair bitterly admitted his celebrity rose, "not because the public cared anything about the workers, but simply because the public did not want to eat tubercular beef".^[4]

Sinclair's account of workers falling into rendering tanks and being ground, along with animal parts, into "Durham's Pure Leaf Lard", gripped public attention. The morbidity of the working conditions, as well as the exploitation of children and women alike that Sinclair exposed showed the corruption taking place inside the meat packing factories.

President Theodore Roosevelt considered Sinclair a "crackpot"^[5] and wrote to William Allen White, "I have an utter contempt for him. He is hysterical, unbalanced, and untruthful. Three-fourths of the things he said were absolute falsehoods. For some of the remainder there was only a basis of truth."^[6] The President was leery of aligning himself with Sinclair's politics and conclusions in The Jungle, so he sent Labor Commissioner Charles P. Neill and social worker James Bronson Reynolds, men whose honesty and reliability he trusted, to Chicago to make surprise visits to meat packing facilities. Despite betrayal of the secret to the meat packers, who worked three shifts a day for three weeks to clean the factories prior to the inspection, Neill and Reynolds were still revolted by the conditions at the factories and at the lack of concern by plant managers. Their oral report to Roosevelt tentatively supported Sinclair, failing only to substantiate the claim of workers falling into rendering vats and being left to be sold as lard. [snip]

This country will NEVER vote for a person like Ron Paul because he is not a lying SOB like the others. MOST/ALL politicians are either on their knees in front of some CEO or on their knees behind one. All these politicians lie to get into office and lie to stay there. For these A$$holes, Dr. Paul is strange but the reality is, he is only sane one and too bad that most of the voters can't see that.

Adam, your argument "make it easier to sue" is one of those "fluffy" statements that seems great in theory and fails miserably in reality. It is actually quite easy to sue over just about anything in America's court systems already - thus the preponderance of inane lawsuits. The issue in most pollution related suits is proof of damage - that is often extraordinarily tough to prove in the absolute when you talk about environmental and/or health consequences. e.g.: How do you prove that your child's leukemia is due to hexavalent chromium from a power plant and not a naturally occuring predisposition. That's the ultimate fallacy of your argument - the specific effects of environmental harm are often very difficult to distinguish individually.

This goes back to the argument that the EPA isn't living up to its purpose therefore the purpose of the EPA must somehow be non-existent. I'd argue that for every example you find of the EPA doing a poor job, we could come up with a number of examples proving their regulations have benefited Americans. However, nobody every complains about the benefits - they only complain when things don't go right. Go here: http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/aqtrends.html - me personally that tells me that the EPA is at least doing some part of their job right. The same thing goes for the FDA and a host of other agencies. People like yourself grasp one or two negative items and ignore the plethera of examples to the contrary - that kind of selectivity is not constructive. I will definitely agree that an example of constructive criticism is to say "the EPA's stance on fracking actually protects the polluters." I just can't agree that the logical result is to abolish the EPA - that ignores way to many examples of solid, EPA mandated improvements to our air and water quality.

If someone is harmed by pollution nothing can be done about right now because the EPA has approved of it.

If someone is in the office of Presidency threatening to cut off an agency if they do not get their act together do you not think they might attempt to tighten up?

Our country can't afford all the waste we have going on something has to give.

Ron Paul is portrayed as a radical but actually he is a conservative he wants to conserve your money and mine and try to keep the government from just wasting our resources. To me that does not seem like a bad idea. I want my child and grandchild to have a country that is a good place to be. I have had a good life. I hope they will have the chance at one too. I don't care if I have to have it a little rough if it means they will have the same chance I had at freedom and a good life. We all want better for our children but now I feel like I have to hope for at least as good as what I had.

The FDA is not protecting our foods or our medicine I am appalled at the list of side effects that they call acceptable. Do you call approving a drug that has death as a known side effect safe or one that has a worse disease that what is being treated safe?

One of Ron Paul's largest group of supporters is the natural food and health care industry who has railed against the stuff the FDA is approving and the other stuff they declare dangerous. I tell you I am scared of what the FDA approves. I know a lot of people who doubt their protection.

Hmmm... Any candidate, who openly wants to abolish the EPA, and other U.S. government agencies, might not be thinking very clearly. It is one thing to think such a thing, and it is another matter entirely to say it.

None of the present gaggle of Republican Party presidential candidate wannabes are acceptable.

Willard, religious views aside, has not had any meaningful contact with average every day people. Rick is far too draconian, vindictive, and sanctimonious. Newton does not pass the ethics or morals test. Ronald is not age appropriate. Add to that, all of them have the charisma of a bag of steer manure.

As a Republican, I am embarrassed to see that the GOP cannot find a more meaningful candidate – as in someone who really knows something about making a budget and keeping to it, creating jobs, and, caring about people who are less fortunate.

Until the Republican Party gets rid of the conservative Christians and other mean-spirited people within the Party, the GOP will remain in the toilet for a long time.

Unless you are in a REALLY competitive Democratic House primary district, I suggest all Illinois democrats go out and become Republicans for a day. Vote for Ron Paul. The talking heads on FOX would spin like Linda Blair in the Exorcist. They would also freakout at the number of votes cast.

Also, the Republican Party would actually have an honest man win a primary.

Anybody who is unwilling to see America go to war at Israel's behest isn't even fit to call himself an American, let alone a candidate for the U.S. presidency! American Patriotism begins abroad---in Israel. Until Ron Paul recognizes that and prostrates himself before AIPAC, he deserves to be scorned and marginalized.

So in some of these threads is was mentioned about Dr. Paul's policy regarding FDA and EPA. Do you feel that either one of these agencies work or have you in their best interests? Let's look at the FDA they are supposed to govern medication/medicine yet they recieve 100s of millions a year from PHARMA. The FDA policy is to never approve a new drug to an individual but only to a large pharmaceutical firm with unlimeted access. They also believe it is proper to hinder research when it is done through a small or private firm or a foreign company. They refused approval of spinal disc replacement for more than a decade even though it had been performed throughout Europe with great results for decades. The finally approved it when Charite International opened a plant in Boston and started paying the FDA. They have also fail on foods and so many other items they are supposed to regulate. Inspectors and officals are promised jobs when they leave the FDA with the companies they are supposed to regulate. Do a search on the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, which put the FDA on the payroll of the large Drug Makers. THis is only the beginning of the problems.

EPA is also in bed with the companies it is supposed to regulate. Passing the free range use of hydro fracking, burial of toxic wastes miles miles form drinking water, Mountaintop mining, the pass on regulations for pollution emmissions, the Gulf Spill and the allowing BP to run the show. Again this is only the beginning of the problems

Both of these agencies are in the back pockets of the companies they are supposed to protect us against.

Now lets look at the rights we have lost due to the TSA and Homeland Security, the money spent overseas on wars and nation building(not our own). We run on an imaginary monetary system, when we need more money we just print it and then there is shipping of our jobs overseas due to free trade.

Ron Paul has a system that if allowed can be put in place to fix many of these problems or atleast begin to fix them. One of our major problems is BIG BUSINESS envolvment in our gov./Washington, Ron Paul wants this to end. Our current Prez and the other canidates wants to keep Big Busssiness there as that is how they and their friends get there power and money.

All these charts prove is how effective the national media blackout is. Everyday we get a report on the candidates all except Dr Paul. We are lucky to get a report on him once every two weeks from the National media.

Local events are usually covered by the local media and picked up by the nats for the entire country, if Mitts drew 5,000 to a campaign stop there would be national coverage (mostly because he hasn't come close to that total yet), when Dr Paul does it, (and he does it quite often) we hear nothing.

It's the same issue with the "Enthusiasm" claim that the republicans are not motivated. the truth is entirely the opposite...

Here is a link...

Idaho Caucus

Clearly the Republican base is enthused and active, it also exposes the Democrats crossing over in the open primaries and caucuses to vote for santorum in the effort to skew the returns.

It's not just reports like that, I saw it with my own eyes here in Washington, the liberal media is doing everything in their power to skew, slant, and confuse the electorate. They do not want Dr Paul anywhere near a podium debating Obama and his policies.

How can you debate against the Constitution, the Founding Fathers, Freedom and Liberty? remember the news media's pundits would have to argue against such things in defending the president.

They would all be exposed for the posers they are, you could instantly tell just where they lie and scheme and attempt to manipulate. The instant they open their mouths you would KNOW that they are for taking away your rights. They already think you can be led to the slaughter by their broadcasts that they are all powerful.

You know what, by accepting their premise you are already going down the road they have laid out for you...

WAKE UP AMERICA! this is either a country of FREE men and women, or we are nothing but a bunch of slaves.

This is the chance to change things in this country, a chance to restore the greatness that this country was, you will never get another.

The reason the four most powerful and influencial media groups who own most major media outlets downplay and marginalize Ron Paul, is he wants to end all monopolies and prevent the special interest groups, both domestic and foreign from investing millions of dollars on political advertisements to buy the presidency and members of Congress.........If Ron Paul wins, political success will be measured by integrity and good ideas, not dollars

Stesilaus

Here is a little history lesson for you.

http://www.gtr5.com/evidence/moorer.htm

Affidavit made by people actually involved. Israel is not always our friend and ally. Some even believe that there were Israelis doing espionage in the US leading up to 9/11. If they were somehow involved, what better way to involve the US in a little ethic cleansing which only benefits Israel. Remember, the US is only 3% Jewish. I am part Jewish, but not enough to do their dirty work.

Well, Ron Paul wants the government to shrink in size and disappear from our lives. He wants to play a great role within our government, to lead the country as its President, to this goal. So he's slowing shrinking away in the ratings of America's short attention span of television watchers. So he got what he wanted. Shrinking away ...but just not in the way he intended.

Vote for Ron Paul. The talking heads on FOX would spin like Linda Blair in the Exorcist.

That alone is enough reason to vote for him IMO

fishman-1985527 -

Ron Paul has a system that if allowed can be put in place to fix many of these problems or atleast begin to fix them. One of our major problems is BIG BUSINESS envolvment in our gov./Washington, Ron Paul wants this to end. Our current Prez and the other canidates wants to keep Big Busssiness there as that is how they and their friends get there power and money.

Oh come the @#$% on, you are goint to actually call what Ron Paul is calling for a "system??" REALLY? Ron Paul's solution is "no regulations, sue if you get screwed." That isn't a freaking system - that's just inane, naive, and to be blunt blatently stupid. You and the rest of the Ron Paul cult drink the Koolaid without any ability to think more than 2 steps down the path that follows. You are angry about corruption so you suggest to get rid of the corrupt agencies rather than the corrupt agents within the agencies. Do you and the rest of the cult really believe that everyone in the big bad government is out to screw you? Seriously? I hear this junk over and over and over and as best I can tell you guys feel so unimpowered that you lash out without thought to consequence. I grew up in the 70s. I work in industry. I know that our system is far far from perfect, but I also know what the average company would do without any regulation in place.

The solution isn't to remove regulation. The solution is fair and reasonable regulation balanced across the needs of the constituents protected by the regulation and the realities of economics. I'd suggest you try to channel your energies towards improving the agencies you despise so much, but that is pointless - I'm wasting my time even typing this because you and the rest of the cult can't give an inch beyond the gospel of of the Libertarian ideal - far be it for anyone to point out that the real world will never be ideal.

Ron Paul is the only candidate that is different, Romney, and Obama, Santorum and Gingrich will all contunue wars and continue our failed foreign policy of "do what I want and you will get BILLIONS piss me off and you die."

Toasty McGrath

Heh, you can always spot a Ron Paul sheep by their insistence on everyone calling him "Dr. Paul."

Strangely, they never seem to extend the same courtesy to such accomplished persons as Dr. Maddow...

Maybe because Dr. Paul is an actual doctor where Miss Maddow is a "Dr. of philosophy"?

I cannot believe how many people think that because he doesn't have all the media coverage and he doesn't have outstanding poll numbers, that people think he is not a viable candidate. I just want people to realize that even though he will not get the GOP nomination he will still be running and he will still be getting a lot of votes. Too bad the GOP doesn't realize the chance they are wasting.

Ruken

@UnitedStates1776 how can you agree with only those 2 ideas of Paul's? All of his other ideas are based on the same exact principle..... freedom and liberty.

Yea, abolishing the FDA sounds like freedom and liberty.

Let's go back to the days of meat-packing as per "The Jungle".

Ruken....THis has to be one of the most ignorant posts. At least post some facts if you are going to comment....You sound like most of the Anti-Ron Paul people (who dont really know what they are talking about...only argue, because they dont understand it). Anyway...The FDA is not benefitting the American people....(you must be going nuts right now!!!) Its true. The FDA has approved drugs that are harmful, becasue they are paid hundreds of thousand of dollars per applications fee from their partners (pharma) and there is a program in which these drugs are expedited...into approval status, without all research done! Why???? Only one answer...$$$!!! Yup...thats right...then, years later, they will take it off the shelf only after the drug companies reap billions at our expense (money and health). Yet the FDA will not approve cancer studies that show success without the use of chemotherapy!!!! Hmmmm Ruken...I think Ron Paul is right about the FDA. ...Lets take one more look....At the moment, it is reported that there is "no cure" for onset diabetes! Right? Agree? Well anyway, the answer is yes (technically). The reason they say this is because there is no drug to cure it! But what they dont tell you is "CHANGE YOUR DIET!"...no they wont do that....because that doesnt bring in $$$!

Ruken...you are wrong....Ron Paul is right on the FDA. (Psst...you should do a little research...."before" you comment such ignorance)

In this particular post...the results are in!

Ruken 0

Ron Paul 1

Some of the Liberatarian ideals are good. Too bad Ron Paul isn't consistent in following them.

And while some of his ideas are good, where on earth would we get enough gold to ship to China if we were silly enough to revert to the gold standard?

Don't Be A Moron

fishman-1985527 -

Ron Paul has a system that if allowed can be put in place to fix many of these problems or atleast begin to fix them. One of our major problems is BIG BUSINESS envolvment in our gov./Washington, Ron Paul wants this to end. Our current Prez and the other canidates wants to keep Big Busssiness there as that is how they and their friends get there power and money.

Oh come the @#$% on, you are goint to actually call what Ron Paul is calling for a "system??" REALLY? Ron Paul's solution is "no regulations, sue if you get screwed." That isn't a freaking system - that's just inane, naive, and to be blunt blatently stupid. You and the rest of the Ron Paul cult drink the Koolaid without any ability to think more than 2 steps down the path that follows. You are angry about corruption so you suggest to get rid of the corrupt agencies rather than the corrupt agents within the agencies. Do you and the rest of the cult really believe that everyone in the big bad government is out to screw you? Seriously? I hear this junk over and over and over and as best I can tell you guys feel so unimpowered that you lash out without thought to consequence. I grew up in the 70s. I work in industry. I know that our system is far far from perfect, but I also know what the average company would do without any regulation in place.

Just want to point out a few flaws in your post. The Koolaid is being drunk by the people who believe so heavily in the MSM, and the establishment! No one believes that "everyone" in the govt is out to get us....however, so much has changed for the worse in our gov't that there needs to be a reality check...and it needs to be fixed! Not just bad moves, but illegal things like "Fast and Furious"....things like this need to be adressed and dealt with, and Eric Holder should be punished along with the rest involved. ...I dont believe anyone is above the law! Also, many laws and business (involved in politics) like drug companies operated without regard to peoples lives, but because of profit actually harm us...(example?....FDA approved drugs (without research) which are later recalled or pulled because of fatalities, or other very harmful sideffects).....on another not...if you get rid of "irrelevant, corrupt" agencies....you will effectively get rid of the corrupt people...pretty simple, if you ask me.

That's right Raychel, because being a Rhodes Scholar is just something to scoff at...

The media had not been engaging in a media blackout of Paul, they have been actively campaigning against him from the very beginning. In the 2008 campaign Paul and his supporters were actually locked out of the republican convention...why? Because he is opposing the corporatist agenda which both parties are implementing.

This is why the media have sought to undermine him at every opportunity. Anyone denying this is either a liar or just not paying attention. When Paul does get mentioned it is usually to remind people that "he doesn't have a chance" and/or that he is not a "serious candidate". Not only were these comments and attitude not supportable by the actual facts, but the very idea that the media would make such comments during an election, particularly so early on in the process, is absolutely outrageous. The MSM no longer "report the news" they are openly and brazenly engaged in molding public opinion. When others do this they call it PROPAGANDA.

Early on the race, by all of the usual benchmarks used by the media to determine who was "credible" and who was a "front runner" (money raised, organization, name recogniition, etc.) Paul was leading all of the other candidates in the race, save Romney. When the Iowa caucuses resulted in a statistical tie between Bachman and Paul, None of the media gave Paul any credit at all....it was if he wasn't even a candidate. When discussing the NH primary, one supposded "journalist" on FOX was asked "what if Paul wins in NH"...to which he replied it would mean nothing...but if Huntsman were to win that would be a major development!

The truth is that most people get their information from MSM and if the MSM say Paul isn't a serious candidate, then that is what they will believe. The MSM has immense power to influence public opinion. We can see much of this from the ridiculous posts on this page...asserting that Paul's positions are nuts...I'm waiting to see someone post that he wants to starve babies and kill puppies. If you actually take the time to listen to what Paul is saying in something greater than 12 second sound bytes and/or actually read his position statements (which unlike the "mainstream candidates" he posts on his web page), you will see that his positions are actually well thought out and far from being "nuts".

Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of things that I disagree with Dr. Paul on. I am for single payer health insurance and for actually increasing Social Security benefits (and making it a true pension system), but the reality today is that until we "change the way money works we can change nothing". Nearly all of our most serious problems are a direct result of the current monetary system and fractional reserve banking. Our money supply is controlled by globalists (ie. international bankers/finaciers). They have the ability to litterally create limitless amounts of dollars at will and distribute them to anyone they see fit....without any oversight whatsoever. If money=power, then this control of limitless money is limitless power. It is why they control the political system, it is why their globalist agenda seems unstoppable.

Ron Paul is the only one willing to take on this issue regain control of our money supply, which is the prerequisite to dealing with any of the other issues that confront us. People keep talking about the gold standard and its shortcomings as if Paul were actually advocating a gold standard...he isn't. He is advocating remonetizing gold and silver so that people have an alternative store of value and as a way to provide some check on the tendency of government (and central bankers) to unusifiably expand the monetary base), but that is all. What we need is a return to SOVEREIGN DEBT FREE MONEY. Returning to Soveriegn Money would wipe out the national debt overnight without any inflationary effect whatsoever...but most people don't know this. They are under the delusion that somehow there is some difference between an interest bearing $100 Treasury bond and a printed soveriegn $100 bill. From a monetary/economic standpoint, there isn't any difference at all....except that we must pay interest on the bond!

Wake up people. We are being enslaved by this monetary system and the powers that control it. This is why the MSM and the political establishment are so afraid of Ron Paul. AFTER we have regained control of our monetary system there will be plenty of time to argue about these other issues.

No it's not Toasty, but it still doesn't make her a "doctor" having a love of wisdom is not the same thing as delivering 4000 babies or being a flight surgeon.

They should also mention how many negative comments are made about the rest... that also add to those numbers

Ya gotta give him credit fer comin this far, clowns normally never go anywhere beyond the circus....

Ron paul is a nice fella that I could vote fer as a county sheriff.

Anything beyond county lines will be askin fer too much son.....

There credibility is zero. That Pew research Center's numbers are what Obama wants them to be. That Center claims there is 12,000,000 illegal immigrants in the United States when they know damn well its like 65-70,000,000. Please watch who they claim they get their facts from and check them out. Don't believe anything Pew Research Center tells you.

Uh, Mike? We already have that. They're called "primary election results."

@jeannie green: Sweetie, you've been wearing your hat too tight. Are you honestly saying that 20% of the total population of the United States is an illegal? Really?

Do you dolts ever actually listen and logically think about the drivel that you continually spew? Because if you did you'd realize how flat out crazy/stupid you sound with your massive conspiracy theories and persecution complexes and your rocket-assisted conclusion jumping.

Do us all a favor and go watch TV and leave the serious conversations to people who, y'know, actually know what the hell they're talking about.

Ron Paul is superior to the founding fathers and the Constitution! He is against human bondage and is in favor a woman`s right to vote.

No Republican candidate is more universally panned than Ron Paul. His perennial candidacy and its inevitable failure are like the punchline to a bad joke every election cycle, and it's only his blind, brainwashed supporters that fail to see this.

It's not that Paul has many supporters that are ignored; he doesn't. It's that the relative few that he has more than make up for it by being excessively vocal to the point of fanaticism, making it seem like there are more than there are. It's like the Westboro baptist church. There are very few people out there that think and believe as they do, but they make the headlines because they get themselves in front of the camera at every opportunity.

I'd take Paul over Santorum and the 'Newt'.

Tired - there's another guy running for President who has already showed that he can do the job and do it well. I think you know who I mean.

Tired - there's another guy running for President who has already showed that he can do the job and do it well. I think you know who I mean.

You mean Hillary is running again?

You mean Hillary is running again?

I wouldn't mind seeing that. God knows she could run circles around the field of clowns the GOP managed to throw out there this election.

their saving Hillary for 2016 so she can defeat that New Jersey Guy. and appoint some real Americans to the Supreme Court .. people that actually believe in the Constitution.

I wouldn't mind seeing that. God knows she could run circles around the field of clowns the GOP managed to throw out there this election.

Well you know the running joke that "she's already been President twice before".

As I can recall those were good times as well. I'd vote for her.

Independent jim: You are out of your mind. Since when does this generation of Deomcrants support the constitution? Or was it that they were drunk on their own bathwater when they let bo run them prior to loosing the house

Hillary? You mean you want more war? or did you mean Obama? Cause if you meant Romney....then whats the difference ...we already have him in office...his name is Obama!

You fail to realize that this politics has become like the superbowl. Its just for ratings and we have NO say in it. The politicians are placed...You are told that Ron is nuts, because he benefits you and me. The others are not for you and me, but for war, for corporations and for themselves (via curruption). While you may be naive and believe that....many people are realizing that things are changing, and they're changing for the worse. While many of you may want to bash Ron Paul.....he is the only one who calculated and made people aware of the financial bubble. (They said he was nuts....until it happened)...Why didnt your politicians tell you this????Because they dong give a crap about you!!!! Then Ron Paul warned of what backlash would happen if we were start a war and occupy other countries......of course they said he was nuts, but again he was right!!!! Again where were your politicians....(investing in Haliburton????) Be ignorant...be naive....be stupid....or whatever! But NO politician has been doing anything for the regular people...except for Ron Paul. I know you will say he is nuts.....But you wont mention N.D.A.A...you wont mention the recent Tresspass Bill (H.R. 347).....Nope...youwill ignore these things that is changing our country into a socialist country. And you call him nuts.....he is trying to fight this. Gotta remember, in 1776 when America became indendent, 1/3 approved and 1/3 did not, and the other 1/3 didnt care.....Well i am part of the 1/3 that would approve and do not want to live in a socialist country with a dictator! Thats why i will vote for Ron Paul! because i care for my family and even all of you people....regardless of your ignorance! I care for this country and want it back from corrupted politicians and huge corporations that (pay) put laws in place that do NOT act in our best interest.

Romney nor Obama have your or your nations best interest at hart. The community here cant discern this because the majority are just as corrupt and perceive that this is the way of the world. Besides poor upbringing they also lack the intelligence and imagination to create a more perfect union. There is only one candidate worth my vote. Each of you reading this know of whom I speak because deep in your subconscious you know that what I am saying is the truth. It is sad that they are even considering Romney. I don't need the government for anything; money, security, liberty, nor employment. I provide these things for myself. This places me in a much better position to order the government to go pound sand. The community her cant do that because they are indebted and enslaved to the establishment by their own poor choices. Enjoy your slavery you deserve it.

@Tim Crowe.......Well said! Exactly the truth!

They're "ignoring" him because he's a cake-eater. A clown.

And seriously, how can you accuse the media of ignoring him IN AN ARTICLE DEVOTED SOLELY TO HIM?

whoops

Toasty, the article says nothing about his political views...standpoints..or anything that has some sort of relevance enabling a voter to get a clear view of his political standpoints. Every day there's 15 stories on the other canidadtes views, issues, appearances, social gaffs....at least that gives you an idea of who they are instead of some unknown shadow in the corner. Even if you hate the guy,you should (maybe even more-so) WANT him to have fair coverage. If you think he's a clown then let his "clownish" views on the government be publicized instead of ignored.

hmd I learned quite a while ago that Toasty's goal in life is to try and discredit Dr. Paul, he sees what he wants and hears what he wants, he refuses to listen to any of us, he's stuck in his ways and that's all there it is to it. Toasty only listens to sound bites it's why he has the whole Dr. Paul had racist newsletters and how he's against the 1st amendment etc etc... As much as I respect Toasty's views on a lot of things Dr. Paul is the one place where Toasty is nothing more than a troll.

Extreme positions are often labeled as being "whack-job" positions. The Libertarian position is an extreme position. Thus labeing the Libertairian position as "whack-job" is part of a logical response.

The issue is that Libertarian's don't realize they are a fringe group. Of course that is true for most people that scream loudly from the fringes.

I guess your wacky if you dont like borrowing so much money the country is about to go down the tubes,

Or if you dont like one war after anouther.Obama and Bush and Romney are about the same.

If you're not a total sellout that stands only for the corporations that lobby to bribe your vote, then you are a member of "the fringe" politicians.

If you stand for the Constitution that our country was founded on, then you're a member of "the fringe" politicians.

If you'd rather see the rights of the people restored, rather than the rights of corporations, then you're a member of "the fringe" politicians.

Because, "Truth is Treason in the Empire of Lies"!

Hey don't be a moron, how is libertarianism extreme? Republican conservatives want limited fiscal policy and overwhelming social regulation. Liberals want no social regulation and overwhelming fiscal policy. You take the best of both worlds, you get libertarianism. It's not extreme, it's the ultimate moderation; that's why dems are willing to come vote for Paul!

Paul's no libertarian. His sheep insist on calling him that, but I'm afraid his positions and votes tell a very different story.

If you chose to completely modify the way a government and society function from its current state, then I think it is logically definable as extreme - especially when the majority of said society would not change in the directly you propose. Calling Libertarianism an exercise in moderation is a joke. The moderate viewpoint is a middle sized government with moderate social programs, moderate governmental controls, etc. It isn't throw away the government, go back to the gold standard, etc. I've read a LOT of writing about libertarianism and I'm sorry it is an extraordinarily naive philosophy that seems to have broadest appeal to young idealists or to embittered materialists.

Why would I say naive? Hmm let me give an example - the philosophy that consumer protection would exist because customers would vote with their pocketbooks. Why is it naive? How does a consumer vote agains the power company they purchase electricity from (it has a local monopoly)? How does the consumer vote against the product manufacturers whose products are incorporated into end products without the consumer even realizing it (Think companies like 3M)?

How about the example of the Libertarian ideal that someone injured by a company can seek compensation through the court system and thus regulation isn't required. Explain how someone proves asthma related damages and gets compensation from a group of companies that contributed to their poor quality of life? Here's a direct quote from a libertarian organization: "Libertarians believe that pollution of other people's property is a violation of individual rights. We believe that strict liability, not government agencies and arbitrary government standards, should regulate pollution." I'm sorry that goes beyond naive. That is just stupid. Welcome back to the 1970s.

Should I keep going with examples of naivity in the Liberarian party? It is basically a wild west mentality where the strongest survive and the weak get screwed, but they should be happy with it because they had the opportunity to be strong and chose not to. Don't tell me I'm wrong about that interpretation - the whole concept of Libertarian self reliance is that people are capable of taking care of themselves. Well guess what some people really aren't capable of that due to physical infirmity, realities of birth status, or genetic predisposition. The Libertarian position of "private charities will fix it" is just passing the buck - let's go back to the Dicken's era of "are there no prisons" shall we?

Libertarinism is NOT a moderate viewpoint. Some of its idealogy is arguably very rational, but a lot of the idealogy won't work in practice because people are not inheritenly reliable about doing the right thing. We as a society must find a civil, environmental, and fiscal balance in government that protects the rights of the minority without screwing the majority - I just don't see that ever existing in a Libertarian nirvana. (because the Libertarian nirvana can't exist with real people in it).

Don't Be A Moron

The Democratic Party evolved from Anti-Federalist factions that opposed the fiscal policies of Alexander Hamilton in the early 1790s. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison organized these factions into the Democratic-Republican Party. The party favored states' rights and strict adherence to the Constitution; it opposed a national bank and wealthy, moneyed interests. The Democratic-Republican Party ascended to power in the election of 1800.

It worked pretty well for 150 years.

Your argument "it worked pretty well for 150 years" ignores that societies change and that we live in a world very different from the world of the Hamilton, et. al. The globalization of manufacturing is a reality that can't be ignored and requires a different approach than our very insightful fore-fathers might have envisioned. Do you think they envisioned the great depression, two world wars? communism? Suicide bombers? Etc.? If they had, would they have had modified positions?

I am also ALWAYS amazed by people that think Libertarianism wouldn't play into "moneyed interests." Are you joking or are you just that naive? Why do you think the antimonopoly and antitrust laws exist? The very idea that removing regulation does anything but serve the self-interests of the wealthy elite is beyond illogical - it is incongruent from observable reality.

If you'd like a primer of the net results of weak federal governments, go read about African democracies. A government incapable of and/or unwilling to inforce common tolerance produces such beautiful results. I'd also like to know if you've ever pondered the difference in today's society and the reasons for the demands of states' rights in the 1700s. From the levels of corruption apparent in many state governments, I see little distinction between the criticisms of Federal and State goverment in our current system.

I didn't need the history lesson (I'm well read thank you) - the argument that "x worked in the past, so it will work now" is logically inconsistent when it incorrectly assumes that current and historical conditions are equivalent. (In the military it would be using the last war's tactics to fight the current war's battle and it isn't a recipe for good results).

The thing about that statistic article.... It's just the mention of a name... No positive or negative... So if I say... Santorum says there are no limits to debt ceiling yet there are limits on what I can do in my bedroom ... Or let's say I say Romney is a flip flopper who panders to the crowd du jour and Newt has the worst economic budget out of any candidate and the most ethics violations....I you know who.... statistically however Romney, Santorum and Gingrich just raised a point each.. or is that now 2?.... Also most refer to him as RP in our posts and tweets.... This article and study is beyond flawed.... But it IS a good study on how to lie with statistics

My point was yours. You stated that Libertarian ideology wouldn't work. It worked quite well. Your argument that things have changed and it wouldn't now is the naive one when you consider that not everything that has been done under the current system has worked out for the betterment of society.

John, Sinced you decided to bring Hamilton in as an argument for Ron Paul's positions... Ron Paul has argued against the need for a strong military because we are surrounded by oceans. Even in 1788 Hamilton knew that was a bad plan:

"Though a wide ocean separates the United States from Europe, yet there are various considerations that warn us against an excess of confidence or security. On one side of us, and stretching far into our rear, are growing settlements subject to the dominion of Britain. On the other side, and extending to meet the British settlements, are colonies and establishments subject to the dominion of Spain. This situation and the vicinity of the West India Islands, belonging to these two powers create between them, in respect to their American possessions and in relation to us, a common interest. The savage tribes on our Western frontier ought to be regarded as our natural enemies, their natural allies, because they have most to fear from us, and most to hope from them. The improvements in the art of navigation have, as to the facility of communication, rendered distant nations, in a great measure, neighbors. Britain and Spain are among the principal maritime powers of Europe. A future concert of views between these nations ought not to be regarded as improbable. The increasing remoteness of consanguinity is every day diminishing the force of the family compact between France and Spain. And politicians have ever with great reason considered the ties of blood as feeble and precarious links of political connection. These circumstances combined, admonish us not to be too sanguine in considering ourselves as entirely out of the reach of danger."

The world evolves and changes John. Government must evolve and change to meet those changes. It is naive to believe otherwise.

Your statement "Your argument that things have changed and it wouldn't now is the naive one when you consider that not everything that has been done under the current system has worked out for the betterment of society" has no logical progression and thus does not constitute a proof. (There is no way to step from some things not leading to a "betterment of society" to a proof that Libertarian ideals would work today. Do you imagine that there were no ills in the institution of Libertarianism? Perhaps I could point out a few examples: Slavery... the Trail of Tears... Those were pretty big failures - if I used your argument as an example of a logical proof then Libertarianism is proven invalid due to said failures. Fortunately, I don't think your example of a logical argument is consistent and neither would that one.

Don't Be A Moron

I don't believe that Paul has ever stated that he would not promote a strong military. Simply, one that stays at home till we get our books in order, and if we do go to war, we finish it and come home.

The current system has given us more wars in the last sixty years than in all the time before. So, how does one travesty justify another?

The simple fact of the matter is that all of Pauls positions could never come to pass in 4 years anyway. I just simply believe it would send us in a more positive direction. We are broke, and unless people want to see our deficit hit 22 trillion in four years, Paul is the only answer. Poverty has always led to instability. What is a greater threat to the US?

John after your kids die from bad water, bad medicine, and/or bad beef let me know how great a direction it was. When I can't breath on my morning run, I'll let you know how much I liked your improvements. You are right, we are broke and our deficit is obscene - of course doing away with income tax (another thing that our good Dr. Paul recomemends along with other brilliant economic strokes like going back to the gold standard) is really going to help that.

I'm just thankful that our joke of a Congress is so deadlocked that your viewpoint wouldn't make much headway. Sad that it makes me glad for deadlock...

One more thought:

Poverty has always led to instability. What is a greater threat to the US?

You are absolutely right - poverty does lead to instability - and Paul would also demolish the safety net rather than fix its implementation. Without the safety net we'd eventually come to a new equalibrium, but that would be a long time coming with a lot of pain and suffering in the interim. The bigger the pertubation, the longer it takes to achieve steady state...

So maybe what the Libertarians don't understand is that the majority of Americans in the moderate middle aren't actually too keen on throwing out everything - we'd be a lot more comfortable with rational, well-thoughtout incremental change - change that is headed in the direction of fiscal responsibility without the loss of all social protections. (Please, please don't try and tell me that is what Libertarians want - that isn't the Libertarian doctrine at all).

I don't know what you have heard, but Paul has stated repeatedly that we have an obligation to those on SS and Medicare and he wants to eliminate the governments ability to tap the fund. As far as the welfare programs, I agree with him. Welfare should start at home. If a neighbor is hurting and is an honorable person, you cook them a meal, you don't simply give them a blank check.

Libertarianism generally refers to the group of political philosophies which emphasize freedom, individual liberty, and voluntary association. Libertarians generally advocate a society with little or no government power.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines libertarianism as the moral view that agents initially fully own themselves and have certain moral powers to acquire property rights in external things.

------ Talk about a "whack-job" extremist point of view I tell ya.

Dont be a Moron

Take your own advice and stop spewing BS about something you obviously know nothing about.

Romney stacks up better than Ron Paul in almost every poll. Ron Paul is at the bottom in most polls. He did do better than Bachmann though. Of course, for you Ron Paul supporters, the polls are biased so they don't count I suppose. The polls are biased, the media is biased and the general population are all biased against Ron Paul. The media paints him as a fringe candidate because he is a fringe candidate. Santourm was also a fringe candidate, but somehow managed to be the second place candidate. Ron Paul is the reason why Ron Paul isn't doing well. Let's assume that media bias is the reason why Ron Paul hasn't accomplished anything in his presidential run. If he can't overcome some media bias now, what makes you supporters think, as president, that he could overcome the much bigger bias from the Democratic party? Although I can support some of what he says, especially with regard to foreign policy, I don't see him as accomplishing anything as President. What did he accomplish as a Congressman?

Realist: What polls are you referring to? I have yet to see an online poll where Ron Paul weren't in first or second.

Good thing this is a Republic and not a democracy. Ron Paul is doing well!

Yea, the media is biased. They won't cover a candidate that hasn't won one or even come close in any primary so far, They won't cover a candidate that has only gotten the vote in the single digits in most primaries. They sure won't cover a candidate that has never even come close to actually being competive after runnig for the office twice before. They won't cover a regional candidate for national office that only chases votes in caucus states. They won't cover a candidate that has only 10% of the delegates that the front runner has.

Poor journalism and poor analysis. First of all, there is no breakdown of positive vs. negative comments on the candidates - just how many times they were mentioned in social media. If people were complaining about something Gingrich said during a debate, for example, then it counts as "higher marks" for Gingrich. This is a ridiculous article in that while it presents data, it fails to present any useful data - such as the amount of support versus condemnation for each candidate.

Uh, Jooby? Who taught you civics? A republic is a form of democracy.

Realist: What polls are you referring to? I have yet to see an online poll where Ron Paul weren't in first or second.

But we don't elect with "online polls". Good thing, too, as they're too easy to rig with multiple votes by enthusiasts pushing their candidate way up, far beyond the actual support for the candidate. That's clearly revealed when Paul wins a poll then promptly loses an election.

Polls may give a general impression of the level of support, but what counts is the actual votes.

How about this summary of polls (you can look at Romney v., Gingrich v., & Santorum v. Obama from teh same page too): http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_paul_vs_obama-1750.html

Looks to me like Realist's statement that Romney leads Paul is defensible by a wide margin. However Paul appears to have a slight edge over Santorum and a significant edge over Gingrich (versus Obama). None of them have the lead against Obama. There are polls showing that Paul has a lead vs. Obama amongst independents, which is probably why he has as good a showing in the v. Obama comparisons.

J numbers....if he polls so damn high, why don't he get the votes? You can do all the polls you want, but if people don't vote for him...polls don't mean crap.

Money. He actually doesn't believe 'buying' votes is the way to power unlike Romney. The caucaus in St. Charles MO was over before it started and the policia started arresting Paul AND Santorum supporters. Secondly, the media stated quite clearly, Santorum won Missouri! HOW? This round of Caucauses were non-binding to any one candidate. Nobody will know who won what in MO until next month at the congressional convention. A lot of central MO is supporting Paul!

Just to clear the air, I agree with Dr. Paul on the importance of curbing our appetite for military intervention around the world, and on the need to bring virtually al of our armed forces back to US bases. I suspect that a vast majority of the American people also agree with him on these issues. After that, most of us part company with Dr. Paul very quickly. His support of the Gold standard is nothing short of ridiculous. He is preaching the archaic idea that the wealth of a country should be dictated, not by its industrial and agricultural output, but by the amount it holds of a metal whose predominant use is in adorning the wrists, ears and hands of women. That's a 16th century economic strategy; not one that is consistent with modern society. He believes that the civil rights of the minority should be subject to the will of the majority, and that they should only be extended when the ruling class (at the state level) deems it proper. For a strict constitionalist, Dr. Paul doesn't get it. Those rights are not negotiable and are not subject to majority consent. They are universal and inviolate, or else let's repeal the Bill of Rights. Doing away with the Fed? Does he (or do any of his followers) know the economic history of the US before the Fed? The twenty year cycle between depressions? The government standing by while the economy tanked? No thanks! Then there's the issue of his effectiveness in government. He has been in Congress for nearly 30 years and has zero legislative accomplishments. He is almost always alone on every issue. If he can't work with his peers, what should lead us to believe he can work with them as President? Should we ignore the recent history of the battle between President Obama and the Congress? Would we be disbanding the Congress and the Courts and turning the country over to a benevolent dictator? He is unelectable, and if he were elected he could not govern.

Too bad he's afraid to go on Dr. Maddow's show for an interview.

And sadly, the only person who thinks he's a "strict constitutionalist" is Ron Paul. His voting record on the other hand...

J-2133250,

Just get used to the idea--Ron Paul is not going to win the Republican nomination. As an adult, you can handle it. No candidate who averages 10-12% of the Republican primary vote is going to be nominated as the Republican candidate for President, nor is he going to merit widespread press coverage. You seem to believe that once someone hears his ideas, they'll be captivated. However, that utterly ignores the fact that he's run for the Presidency twice before, he lost badly both time, and he's not going to win in 2012 nor even come close. Regardless of how loyal his following is, it's a tiny fraction of the electorate.

Most sensible people in Ron's shoes would come to their senses and just fold up the tent. Ron stubbornly clings to the impossible for no other reason than his puny ego. And, just to round things out, he's not only not a "strict constructionist," but he's a moron who masquerades as a legal authority on the Constitution. His views on the 10th Amendment and limited federal powers only are contrary to the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court. He absolutely butchers the First Amendment's religion clauses.

According to Ron, "The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance." This is demonstrably wrong, according to no less an authority than the United States Supreme Court, which has consistently recognized that the purpose of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment was to build or erect a wall separating Church and State, according to Thomas Jefferson, whose group crafted the clause:

"[A]t the first session of the first Congress the amendment now under consideration was proposed with others by Mr. Madison. It met the views of the advocates of religious freedom, and was adopted. Mr. Jefferson afterwards, in reply to an address to him by a committee of the Danbury Baptist Association (8 id. 113), took occasion to say: 'Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions,-I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.' Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured." Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 164 (1878) (emphasis added).

"This Court first reviewed a challenge to state law under the Establishment Clause in Everson v. Board of Ed. of Ewing, 330 U.S. 1, 67 S.Ct. 504, 91 L. Ed. 711 (1947).1 Relying on the history of the Clause, and the Court's prior analysis, Justice Black outlined the considerations that have become the touchstone of Establishment Clause jurisprudence: Neither a State nor the Federal Government can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither a State nor the Federal Government, openly or secretly, can participate in the affairs of any religious organization and vice versa.2 "In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and State.' "Everson, 330 U.S., at 16, 67 S. Ct., at 511 (quoting Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 164, 25 L. Ed. 244 (1878)). Even the Everson dissenters agreed: "The Amendment's purpose ... was to create a complete and permanent separation of the spheres of religious activity and civil authority by comprehensively forbidding every form of public aid or support for religion." 330 U.S., at 31–32, 67 S. Ct., at 519–520 (Rutledge, J., dissenting, joined by Frankfurter, Jackson, and Burton, JJ.); accord, Lee v. Weisman, 505 US 577, 599-600 (1992)(emphasis added).

Moreoever, he's joined the nitwit, anti-science team when it comes to global warming. Ron Paul is a global warming flip-flopper and now a global warming denier. In 2008, he had this to say about global warming: "It is clear that the earth experiences natural cycles in temperature. However, science shows that human activity probably does play a role in stimulating the current fluctuations." By 2009, Paul was singing a different tune: "The greatest hoax I think that has been around for many, many years if not hundreds of years, has been this hoax on [...] global warming." Even if Ron isn't being paid off by Big Oil, he's still doing their bidding. The concept that humans cause global warming is shared by the vast majority of legitimate climatologists in the world; only scientists hired by Big Oil promulgate the myth that global warming is a hoax or is not caused by human activities. Moreover, his claim that global warming has been a hoax for hundreds of years is so obviously wrong: concerns about global warming have not existed for "hundreds of years." I was around for the first "Earth Day" in 1970, and global warming or climate change wasn't an issue then. I'd say it became a topic of discussion about 15 years ago. Paul's statement about there being a global warming hoax for hundreds of years is patently ridiculous.

As to abortion, Dr. Paul, based on delivery 4000 babies as a physician, believes that life begins at conception. Why delivering babies could inform anyone attempting to answering the centuries-old philosophical or religious arguments about when life begins is an absolute mystery. His belief that life begins at conception allows him to abandon ordinary Libertarian positions of deploring governmental invasion into the private, personal lives of people/'women. He thinks it's fine and dandy to prohibit abortions, but it's the states, not the federal government, who must prohibit it. This is because of his weird states rights position under the 10th Amendment.

Bottom line: Dr. Paul seems like an amiable character. I largely agree with many of the positions he espouses, including limited involvement in future wars whose purpose is to secure resources for US businesses and a withdrawal from the obviously failed Drug War. However, Dr. Paul makes a lot of things up to suit his political views and is a constitutional dolt. In the end, history will bear out that Ron Paul was a LOSER.

Michael L. Marowitz
J.D., J.S.M. (Master's in law with emphasis on constitutional law, Stanford Law School, 1981)

"The greatest hoax I think that has been around for many, many years if not hundreds of years, has been this hoax on [...] global warming."

You parsed that sentence incorrectly. That obviously means that it is bigger than any other hoax in the past years, not that it has been around for many years.

"That's the biggest pumpkin I've seen in years!"

"Nitwit, that pumpkin was only planted this spring."

Also, I, and most RP supporters I know, and I believe Ron Paul, agree with everything you posted re: separation of church and state. That in no way contradicts the quote you gave from him. He did not say the founders intended any civil power to the church, but rather that in a predominantly Christian nation, with a central government strictly limited, that voluntary organization via the church would eclipse compulsory organization via the state.

The two quotes you gave about AGW are also non-contradictory. Here's an analog to what you quoted: "Yes, there really are some people out there who wish to kill Americans through terrorism, but that threat has also been used as an excuse to increase political power to the federal government in general, and the exucutive branch specifically." You know, that part of Ron Paul that most liberals like?

WRT to abortion, while he does oppose it in general, I don't think it's at all clear that he would support any ban on it on any level, but rather opposes the feds preventing the states from banning it for the same reason that we should oppose invading Canada should they ever decide to ban it. Citing the Supreme Court as an authority won't win you any points with the RP crowd. The very point is that, pre-Civil War, the states reserved the power to nullify unconstitutional federal law, and that they themselves had a say in what was constitutional. You can say that the civil war decided that issue, but only in the sense that my giving a mugger my wallet decides the issue of who owns my wallet.

Oh, and I just noticed, you were right on one point. His ego is very small.

Lisa

What he going to call him out on? I wonder. Only good Ron Paul idea is withdrawing military, but that it. Everything else is nutz. The man wouldn't have voted for Civil Rights of 64 and that his own words, that the man you want to vote for? We don't need anarchists, you like anarchy go to Somalia. And don't talk about constitution here. It is living document, it has basic liberties that are protected, but it adjusts to the time too. There is no way our forefathers could have foreseen such advancement 200 years ago. I am not saying Obama did everything fine. I think he could have done much more things or pushed them and should have stood fast by things that he said he will do. But if you look at his competition, that scares me hell of more. I would vote for him right in second. If you guys want me to look twice, put candidate worth looking at, he have to be moderate. No way I am going to want to vote for right wing or even left wing nut. And Obama is very moderate, except to right wingers.

Obama is so far left he cant come back.He is like Bush on steroids on some things.Like that NDAA? how about the new flying drones over the usa?

How you like that no declaring wars thing.Id rather have someone that beleaves in the constitution.

At least Ron Paul can call him out on CURRENT issues that he himself actually VOTED on sicne Obama has been in office, unlike the gov'ner, Santorum, and Newt.

Maksim... WAR IS THE HUGEST POINT. He could also point him out on NDAA and the deficit.

Obama is as centrist as they get, while Ron Paul is pretty extreme far-right in a lot of his policies.

John, you're accusing the media of "ignoring" Ron Paul... In an article devoted entirely to Ron Paul.

Actually, they did mention the few counties where Paul won - a few days later, after all the information had been tallied and the individual county results were known. Not that it made much difference, as Paul still lost most counties and didn't win the whole state.

Toasty McGrath

No, My comment is that they are either ignoring him or are biased. Perhaps you can point out whom you support so I can throughly discredit them?

CM-6969

Saturday before last. If he controls half the delegates in the state, and it comes to a brokered convention, he controls more delegates in the state than any other candidate. This is not the vote, it is actual delegate selection.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/news/ap/politics/2012/Mar/11/paul_supporters_seize_control_of_clark_county_gop.html

I think you missed the point of my comment, which is strange considering I only made one in it and I was pretty explicit.

I don't think I missed your point what-so-ever. They are either ignoring him, or they are being biased. This would be a case of bias. Get it.

So let me get this straight... You're accusing the media of "ignoring" Ron... IN AN ARTICLE DEVOTED ENTIRELY TO HIM.

Dude, you're gonna have to walk me through this logic...

WOW! I doubt you are really that obtuse, but I'll give it a try.

One day they ignore him.

The next day they are biased.

Case in point. When Maine was having its caucus and some believed Paul would win, the header on the top of MSNBC wasn't flashing results until Romney was supposedly ahead. Case and point. Ignore and bias.

Dude, that just suggests a psychotic mind. When you don't see a headline about him (probably because he's a political nobody and is essentially a non-point in a serious election), you claim that he's being ignored. Then when you DO see a headline about him, you turn 180 degrees and suddenly the claim media is obsessing over and trying to destroy him. Those are completely opposite views; you can't have both of them and still be taken seriously.

Perhaps I was wrong, you can be.

Look, I was just suggesting that you're overreacting a little. The reason Paul only shows up sparingly in the media is because he's a minor player in the GOP race, nothing more malicious than that.

Hey Toasty, It is pretty clear that you are an Obama supporter. If Ron Paul is such a horrible candidate that you say the media isn't trying to keep down, I have to wonder why your not promoting him?

I mean really, I don't think it is true, but if he is the worst candidate, isn't that who you would want to go up against your precious?

Because it's really, really fun.

And incidentally, he isn't the worst candidate still running. Santorum is, by far. Which is why I voted for him in the GOP primary.

That is just sick! Be careful what you you wish for. I couldn't imagine what would happen if "butt goo" became president.

Remember, religious people vote religiously, you might regret that vote come Nov if he actually won.

Dude, there's no way he would ever win in a general election.

I've been reading between John and Toasty.....I have to say Toasty, You are completely ignorant to reality. If you havent noticed that Ron Paul has been either ignored, or reported in a negative biased manner....then you are just plain ignorant to it, you are acting ignorant, you are acting stupid or you are stupid. I dont really mean it to sound mean (i know it does, but I honestly dont mean it that way) What i do mean is that is is obvious...it has been acknowledged by the news channels, and it is obvious...even when they have a political segment about the debates and completely ignore Ron Paul...C'mon.....just because you want a dictator rather than a president, and you'd rather have a socialist system rather than one based on capitalism.

Also your comments as to who can win and who is relevant is ignorant in itself! I personally cannot stand Santorum....I think he would ruin America as we know it (even more than Obama...and that is pretty bad) I think Santorum would be the cause of WWIII. I also thought he would never achieve the level he has....again with the help of media attention....they can create who they want to win...It is simple. If they put your face on the screen and tell the world that this is the winner or possible winner...people believe that.....Now as for Ron Paul....He is completely ignored from the news, and when you ask people, "Are you voting for Ron Paul?".....they usually say..."Who?" I have asked many people who ONLY watch news....they dont go online and because of that, they dont even klnow who he is! That is the game being played in our media,...because of the importance in politics. See....your choice (Obama) has power....he doesnt want to lose that! His friends are placed in powerful positions they dont want to lose either.....They have forged friendships with corporations that they can lobby for later, so they can make money for themselves.....So Why would they want an honest man like Ron Paul to come in and put an end to all this corruption that has taken the political system so long to achieve??? They dont care if Obama is in....They dont care if Romney is in......They dont care if Newt or Sanitarium is in!!!!
However they DO care if Ron Paul is in.....because he sides with the Constitution and with the American people! He sides against...>Notice they pulled Freedom Watch off the air.....ratings were good....but they pulled it to put on reruns of other shows....Because people were paying attention to the message of freedom!....Cant have that! Not if we are to be controlled by the government, I mean Not if were saved from the evil empires of our enemies (whoever they are). DOnt worry our government will let us know who they are!

The only veteran! I laugh when they call him out for voting no so much.

Oh you mean Romney and RIck Sactrorum who keep talking about war. Obama pulled troops out of Iraq and soon will be afghanistan, and he is willing to solve diplomatically

Solve WHAT diplomatically? Why do we care??

Were sending plenty of ships getting ready for Obamas Iran war,i think Syria well be targeted also.

Obama and the rest of the republicans seem like they want war.

maksim I suggest you do your research. Bush arranged it in November 2008 that the troops MUST be out of Iraq by December 2011 in a forces agreement with that country. If you recall, back in October Obama was trying to "negotiate" our staying longer, but they weren't having it and had a binding agreement that we had to follow for withdrawal per the UN. So yes, try again as he had NOTHING to do with our leaving and tried to commit us there longer.

Honestly, I just don't trust Ron Paul with the U.S. military. I honestly think he is one of the least-qualified candidates of all time to be the commander in chief of the most powerful fighting force that has ever existed.

Toasty Then why does he get the most votes from the military then? And by the way you obviously dont agree with ron paul, who is the candidate that you would pick to be president then?

Well Toasty?

You know better than the men and women currently enlisted, the ones that have been in the thick of the current situations?

ryan-1853964

Toasty works for the Obama campaign trying to change public perception of a failure by cutting down better candidates.

Uh, Count? Guess what my job is.

And no Ryan, President Obama gets more donations from servicemembers, Paul's gets a little fewer, but his donors are also wealthier.

Toasty McGrath

Paul beat the President by $100,000

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/9/paul-obama-collect-most-military-donations-to-run/?page=all

Like I literally just said John, Paul got more money, but Obama got more donations. And at the moment, only Paul is in campaign mode. When the general election finally arrives, it stands to reason that Obama's lead will only increase.

I like Dr. Ron Paul. He is the only member of Congress (that I can recall) who says he will not vote for something and actually does not vote for it.

He will not vote to increase the national debt. Never has, never will.

Every other politician is a hypocrit. You either have principals or you don't. Dr. Paul has principals, not one other politician in Washington does.

II like obama but like Ron Paul better. I hardly think that servicemen would pick Obama when ron wants the troops home and no more useless wars. If ron paul was v.p to obama that would be great. Ralph nader / ron paul would be best.

Lisa--thanks for supporting President Obama`s effort to get us out of the two unfunded wars!

How about winning the popular vote in the Virgin Islands? Oh wait, he didn't really "win" since Romney got more Delegates. THEN in that case, why not write about Ron Paul likely to win IOWA (more delegates)?

WAIT WAIT change the rules again! Can't have Ron Paul winning!

Besides, let's review. Gold Standard: Paul's issue, Gingrich comes around. Leave Afghanistan now: Paul's issue, Gingrich and Santorum come around. Oppose SOPA/PIPA: Paul's Issue, Obama, Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich all come around.

Looks to me like you could cover Paul if you want to know what the other candidates are going to support in the future. Or you could cover Paul because he is right.

@Kaphen

Inflammatory. I think the article did a good enough job of pointing out the facts -- and who is "too stupid to comprehend them" -- by pointing out multiple sources of coverage on the event that the tweeter accused of a "media blackout," and by showing that despite the high amount of support for Paul, the support for the other candidates is higher.

Thank you for your reply though; you proved the point that Ron Paul worshippers preach about kindness and respect and personal responsibility, but anyone who disagrees with them is immediately branded an "idiot" or "too stupid to understand."

Good post Alanx

If you look at MSNBC and CNN they do not even post the results for the virgin Islands EVEN TODAY (look for yourself). They say "still Processing" yet they called elections in other states with LESS THAN 1% of the vote in! The difference? Ron Paul won this state! It is pretty funny that they did not count 8 counties in Iowa that were strong Ron Paul and the same thing happened in Main. They knew Ron Paul would win so they fixed the caucuses so they didn't have to count strong Ron Paul counties. Then they do a "re-count" and STILL leave these counties out. They simply didn't count counties that were expected to be a Ron Paul win. The saddest thing is you have idiots too blind to see any of this because they are too busy eating the poop the media is spoon feeding them on the Boob tube and too stupid to do their own reasearch. Just about everyone I know that gets their news from the Internet and fact checks is a Ron Paul supporter. The ones that aren't regurgitate the lies the main-steam media has fed them.

Remember before the straw pole when it looked like Ron Paul would win and Iowa went from the most important caucus in the country to one that "doesn't matter"?

@ Cameron Ford

Can't blame some peope for feeling that the media has purposely ignored Ron Paul; only a sucker would believe in a bulls&it statistical program pulled out of one's @ss to show how many mentions one has over the other. With these kind of comments left on multiple national news sites, the graph would theoretically fall in Paul's favor.

Regardless though, the press is more concerned about pulling in ratings with "Teen Mom" tactics rather than focusing on the real issue. The report on the Virgin Islands was the icing on the cake for Paul fans.

If you look at MSNBC and CNN they do not even post the results for the virgin Islands EVEN TODAY (look for yourself). They say "still Processing" yet they called elections in other states with LESS THAN 1% of the vote in! The difference? Ron Paul won this state! It is pretty funny that they did not count 8 counties in Iowa that were strong Ron Paul and the same thing happened in Main. They knew Ron Paul would win so they fixed the caucuses so they didn't have to count strong Ron Paul counties. Then they do a "re-count" and STILL leave these counties out. They simply didn't count counties that were expected to be a Ron Paul win.

If that's the case, why blame the Media? MSNBC and CNN don't tally the votes, they don't run the elections, they can only report information that is provided to them by those who do tally the votes - in the case of caucuses and primaries, that's either the State election officials or Party officials (Republican party, in this case) So if the Republican party officials are fiddling with results in Iowa and Maine, that's not the fault of the media, is it.

In fact, I do believe that Rachael Maddow has mentioned the discrepancies in Iowa and Maine on more than one occasion on her show...

I wonder if this company Crimson Hexagon Inc has any connection with Diebold? It's clear that the article has no fact's to support or disprove the "media blackout"... Let's not mention that Facebook and Twitter are "Social" media and are for entertanment, American people cant trust the filth that spew out of so called "Journalist"... The crumbling of America and our current President are the result.. If I was a zombie and couldnt' make up my on mind I would vote for Mitt or Newt...Really listen to those names Mitt? Newt? Who can honestly even listen to them being introduced, yet alone listen to them talk....At least Ron Paul has dignity....and an American name..

Sadly, count, the Acid Trip Disney World MSM is the only source of information the masses make desicions from. Take the cult like Obama following for example, notably Obamacare:

H.R. 3200 section 2521, Pg 1001, paragraph 1

The Secretary shall establish a national medical device registry to facilitate analyisis of postmarket safety and outcomes data on each device that-"is or has been used on a patient; "and is-" a class III device; or "a class II device that is implantable, life-supporting, or life-sustaining"....

Among all the various Unconstitutional, and very criminal laws BOTH Demcrats and Republicans are devising against the people of America, this was most glaring: The implementation of RFID chips in every American Citizen, with those chips having medical history as well as personal bank account information. Ron Paul has been the only one to speak of this, and I don't expect Chuck Todd, Rachel Maddow, or Bill O'Rielly to discuss it anytime soon.

MSM is the only source of information the masses make [decisions] from.

Even if that were true, I'd rather take my cues from the mainstream media than the MSM that drives the right wing (Magic Sky Man).

Rage, that is such a stupid twisting of the quoted paragraph that I'd ignore it except for the fact there are a whole lot of low functioning individuals that would believe it. The referenced paragraph is clearly (even in the small clip you've copied) requiring the creation of a database for the monitoring of medical device performance for devices that have actually been surgically implanted - so for example it might be good to track a series of insulin pumps and see that they have a high failure rate. OH MY GOD WHY WOULD THEY DO THAT??!?!?

There is no plan to lo-jack Americans moron.

Oh, but there IS. The Quasi-Soviet style control grid is shaping up nicely in America because they put a smooth talking pimp in place to make it all agreeing to people like you.

@RageAgainstThem

HR3200 was an old version of the bill that did not pass. Why bring it up?

Facts and logic will never get between a paultard and a conspiracy theory.

Because HR3200 is not the beginning, but the middle ground, for Totalitarianism. The very fact we're having this discussion proves it. I don't want to control your life, but THEY do.

"MSNBC along with all the other MSM are actually criminals at this point." You see, this is why nobody takes Ron Paul sheep seriously...

The truth is at this point MSNBC along with all the other MSM are actually criminals at this point.

Since you are posting this on MSNBC, wouldn't that make you accessory to the crime?

Sorry, but ignoring a loosing candidate is not a crime, nor is failing to report a story. You've got no case.

Nice bait and switch, actually it's just plain lame. Blanket statements like yours may make you think you just "told those guys", but in reality it just leaves your indifference to what is very serious issue exposed for everyone to see. It isn't just my opinion. Disreputable "reporting" and flagrant manipulation of information in order to push forth a politcal agenda is dispicable and when other peoples freedoms and liberties are being hijacked by flagrant FRAUD, it is criminal!

Give a cited, CREDIBLE example, Count. Go on. Just realize that if you didn't actually do your homework, someone is going to shoot down your theory. Presumably with a lot of glee and condescension.

Rage,

You write, that HR3200 is "Among all the various Unconstitutional, and very criminal laws BOTH Demcrats and Republicans are devising against the people of America, this was most glaring." In order to constitute a violation of the Constitution, the law or governmental act must transgress some section of the Constitution. So tell us Rage, which particular provision of our Constitution is being violated by HR3200? I'll come back later to this blog and see if you can supply a cogent answer.

What's a "very criminal law?" You probably don't mean a law that makes criminal some kind of misconduct, like robbery, rape or murder. If you're referring to HR3200, its passage cannot be "very criminal." Its passage may have been unwise, lacking in factual support, or have been influenced by those with special interests, but the enactment of a law itself is not criminal, and certainly not "very criminal."

Before you opine about a law or the Constitution, it's always a good idea to have a glimmer of understanding as to the law and the Constitution. Without such understanding or training, one who makes pronouncements about law and the Constitution may be regarded as a mere rhetorician who tries to make his/her opinions seem more persuasive than they really are.

Michael L. Marowitz
J.D., J.S.M. (Master's in Law with emphasis on constitutional law, Stanford Law School, 1981)

Just like you Michael, on this blog, you are nothing but another opinion poster, and a liberal democrat shilling one at that. Nothing special.

A very criminal law, Marowitz, is one that infringes on my personal liberties, and so-called freedoms. No one needs to attend law school to figure that out. You are part of the problem, not the solution. I don't care where you go, what you do, or what it is you think you might find with my response. But your credentials mean nothing to me as long as you distort, and distract from the fact that America, the last Republic on the planet, is falling under a complete control grid.

Egil and Rage resorting to ad hominem attacks is usually a sign of a weak argument.

In my opinion, Michael's point is completely valid - please explain in what way the sighted paragraph violates the Constitution and associated amendments? If you are going to claim something is unconstitutional then you have to be able to explain what part of the Constitution it violates. What specific article please?

(And that doesn't even address Rage's laughable twisted interpretation of the HR3200 paragraph requiring all Americans to be RFID chipped. Incidentally, do you own a cellphone? If so, you are already "chipped" and you pay a monthly fee for the privilege. Do you use Google as a search engine and have a logged in gmail account?" You've already consented to be tracked for free. Do you access the Internet from a personal computer? What do you think your ISP does with the information related to you DNS queries? The US Government is far less of a scary beast than the private companies out there already using you - and Libertarians would neuter the government / deregulate private companies even further... yes, let's twist that paragraph to say that the Government is trying to chip you... yes, that's inherently logical.)

DBAM,

No attack here, just telling him that he's no better than the rest of us. Your opinion that it is an attack truly shows the weak argument.

Nobody is better than or above anyone else, claiming someone is is more collectivist crap...

Michael L Marowitz the constitution states that the powers of the federal government are those granted to it by the constitution, and nothing more. So where, if i may ask, does it say in the constitution that the government has the right to regulate healthcare on a federal level?

And dont give me that interstate commerce BS. If the federal government wasn't running welfare and medicare and all this other crap (also not powers or capabilities granted to it by the constitution and therefor NOT CONSTITUTIONAL) then people getting sick or people going to the hospital would NOT be interstate commerce. But because the federal government is always handing out money that it is not constitutionally permitted to hand out, people getting sick becomes an interstate commerce issue and is then able to be regulated by the federal government. THE PROBLEM is that federal welfare is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, so using it as an excuse to claim that healthcare is interstate commerce is also UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

THAT Mr. Marowitz, is a VERY CRIMINAL LAW.

Only one candidate, one, has stood up for YOUR rights in congress. Does that mean anything to you? Even though you are alright with going along with "the crowd" Dr. Paul has gone to bat for you. You can't possibly be unaware of bills like the NDAA, HR347, etc...

PS If you are another paid Troll disregard this message, if not just know that there are people out there who care about you with no expectation or need for reciprocation.

Yeah, "Dr" Paul has gone to bat for my rights, by wanting to give states the ability to take away a woman's right to choose, or civil rights for minorities. Gotcha.

Exactly, what world are you guys living in that you don't have any rights as it is right now, and in which Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate standing up for our rights?

The U.S. Constitution is what is supposed to "give states the ability to take away a woman's right to choose, or civil rights for minorities"

The before mentioned NDAA, HR 347, et. al. are what are NOW stripping all of us. including you and your familie's, rights one by one. I appologize for the tone of the extremely aggitated commenters. It is counterproductive to name call, but understandable in some cases. The world I am living in is the same one you live in.

Dr. Paul spoke up for all of us in congress.

.

Its to much thinking.They click theyre heels and parrot the party line.

Ron Paul won countless debates and so far has won numerous states in the primaries. He is the front runner in all of the polls. He is our savior. Why aren't there more articles about him every day? And why did they make up this analysis and leave out half of the social media posts about him? He is actually mentioned twice as many times than any other candidate and mainstream media just manipulated the resutls!

Oh wait. None of that is true. Maybe he is considered fringe because he is actually fringe...

^ it isn't true? See the vote fraud and outright denial to let people vote in Maine, Nevada, and Iowa...now Mn, etc.

You sheep.

I know! They literally accuse the media of ignoring Paul... IN AN ARTICLE ENTIRELY DEVOTED TO HIM! This is why nobody takes the Ron Paul sheep seriously...

Toasty, you have said the same things over and over and over. This is just one article on a main stream media source. Not like the countless articles that Obama, Newt, Santorum and Romney get on a daily basis.

And you might not be a fan of Ron Paul but don't try and act like you actually know what he stands for and what his positions are because if you did, you would know that he is trying to bring big government back down to size and to represent "we the people" not big oil, corporate america and sleazy lobbyist with their own agendas.

The reason you don't see many articles on him is because he's a political nobody. He's a minor candidate. Nothing more malicious than that. If anything, he's gotten more coverage than someone in his position would justify.

Minor candidates don't get this much support from independents.

Right...the masses are stupid, fickle, and violent...but there is undeniable bias. Anyone who denies that hasn't bothered looking it up. The proof online of stats, demographics, polls, MSM reports where they omit his name, picture, finish in Primaries, "lose" his counties when he wins them, etc. are all right there for you to read about. Open your eyes folks.

Apparently. People that make commercials for various products believe that media coverage is important to selling their product.

Proud, so if Ron Paul has been banned from Google searches, why when you type in his name do you come up with pages and pages of hits. You are swimming in a sea of disbelief.

Verno ... don't you know that it is dangerous to challenge a paranoid's delusions?

He won't get to match up against President Obama without first winning his party's primary. Plain and simple. The End.

Um, simply pretending that something is true doesn't actually make it true...

Derek: What color is the sky in your freaky little world, man?

Derek, good use of sarcasm, but that was obviously way over CM-6969 and gdsmithtx's heads.

and....give a vote to Obama? NOYL....

If you vote for the candidate that gets the nomination but does not have the independent voters support, just who exactly do you think you are giving your vote to?

Or, maybe if people had better brains.

That's why every state needs to include either "NONE OF THE ABOVE" like Nevada or "NO VOTE" like the US Virgin Islands does. I'm one of those NO VOTE voters. I also support the Popular Amendment Movement's (faircampaignreform(dot)us) petition drive for two constitutional amendments:

Petition for US Constitutional Amendment For Election Reform

We, the undersigned US citizens, duly registered voters in our respective states/territories, do hereby petition for our state to approve the following amendment to the United States Constitution by the method noted below.

Election Reform:
1. Abolish the Electoral College (Repeal Amendment 12)
2. ONE NATIONAL primary date to be held on the Tuesday eight (8) weeks prior to the General Election day for Congressional offices and for the President. Candidate petitions must be filed with the local/state elections boards 60 days prior to the Primary Election date. Federal election petitions shall be uniform in every state and shall include a “contract with the voters” that spells out clearly what that candidate stands for on all issues that they may have to address in elected office. They shall be held accountable in court for breach of that contract if elected and any/all terms are not met.
3. NO campaigning allowed for any elective federal office more than 60 days prior to the National Primary Date.
4. NO campaign contribution shall be donated to any candidate of more than $200 from an individual or $500 maximum from a family (spouses/children living in the same household.) No donations shall be made to a candidate more than sixty days prior to the primary date. No candidate shall contribute from their own funds more than 60% of the total donations from other private individuals.
5. NO campaign contribution from any PAC, corporation, union, non-profit organization, special interest group, etc. shall be allowed for any elected federal office.
6. NO third party campaigning (separate PAC ads, corporate ads, etc.) for/against any candidate shall be allowed at any time during or before the election season.
7. NO party conventions shall be held to select the presidential candidates. The selection must be done at the ballot box in the primary election.
8. The One Man/One Vote Supreme Court ruling shall be enforced by this Amendment, namely that NO federal candidate selection shall be by any means other than the ballot box on Primary/General Election Dates.
9. National Party Organizations shall NOT raise money for or donate to specific candidates of their party prior to the dates outlined above.
10. PAC’s shall NOT be granted tax-exempt status by the IRS, and any non-profit organization who uses their funding for political purposes shall lose their tax-exempt status.
11. All lobbyists shall be outlawed from influencing Congress at all times.

This amendment shall be approved ONLY by State Constitutional Conventions to be called within 90 days of this petition being submmitted to a state’s Secretary of State. A minimum of 25% of the registered voters in each state shall be required to further this petition to the respective Secretary of State.

Name Signature State Address

Petition for US Constitutional Amendment For Congressional Term Limits

We, the undersigned US citizens, duly registered voters in our respective states/territories, do hereby petition for our state to approve the following amendment to the United States Constitution by the method noted below.

Term Limits for Congress:
1. Representatives to Congress shall serve no more than two two-year terms in the House.
2. Senators shall be elected to no more than two six year terms in the Senate.
3. No elected official shall serve more than six terms in office in any combined elected offices (House/Senate/Presidency.)

This amendment shall be approved ONLY by State Constitutional Conventions to be called within 90 days of this petition being submmitted to a state’s Secretary of State. A minimum of 25% of the registered voters in each state shall be required to further this petition to the respective Secretary of State.

Name Signature State Address

atp: I was 100% with this proposal until the part about hard-wired term limits. I could never side with the anti-incumbent zealots because I don't see the benefit of replacing experience with inexperience. But the electoral college and selection of candidates by convention? Hoary traditions whose time, if it ever existed, is long gone.

We are a republic.

Indeed we are. We are a liberal democracy that uses a republican structure.

$500 maximum from a family (spouses/children living in the same household.)

So ... if a husband, wife and one or more children over the age of 18 lived in the same household, you'd deprive one or more of them of the ability to donate to the candidate of their choice? Sounds very UNDEMOCRATIC to me.

Indeed we are. We are a liberal democracy that uses a republican structure

This is a boldfaced lie, the only form of government established in the constitution is a republic, nothing having to do with Democracy is contained within it. In the Federalist papers the Founding Fathers specifically an forcefully stated that this is NOT A DEMOCRACY!

This country was founded on Classic Liberalism, American Republicanism version. The progressive Liberalism of the Democrat party of today is the foundational opposite of the liberalism of our Founding Fathers

I've posted the links proving this beyond any shadow of doubt several times.

The Democrats of today are STATISTS! just like Chairman Mao, Joseph Stalin, Vladimir Lenin, Karl Marx, Adolph Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Ch'e Guevara, Nikita Kruschev

Lets go back to our roots, Classic Liberalism is the only way that works, it worked for us for over 150 years, it will work again!

Egil, this is poli sci 101. A republic is a form of democracy. If you can't even get that right, what makes anyone think that you understand ANY of the things you're trying to talk about? You might consider taking an intro-level course at your local community college.

Egilman and Toasty

I think your both right. The US used to be a Republic through representation, in fact, originally only land owners could vote to make sure there was skin in the game. As time went on we morphed into a democracy where the people could vote themselves raises.

Hence, why the founders didn't want a democracy.

But the whole point is that a republic IS a democracy. It is a democracy that follow the structure of indirect representation. It's a sub-type; a category, not a separate form of government. I'm just arguing for the use of accurate definitions here. Everyone knows I'm a fascist when it comes to regulations.

Toasty, I think you mixing up your terms, it is not indirect representation, it is ignored representation. When was the last time you voted for a war, or you voted for a tax increase, or you voted for NDAA or the Patriot Act? Because it sure seems like there are numerous things being 'represented' as our choices when in fact if you look at percentages, our choices are being ignored for pro big govt' choices. Example, multiple states ( which represent the smaller system) have voted for new illegals laws to protect their legal citizens ( and lets be honest the bank account) and the fed govt has decided those states do not represent enough of the nation to make those decisions so they are challenging the new laws constitutionalism! Even though majority voted had to be passed in those states and their elected officials are live NEXT DOOR to their state constituents, the fed has decided those constituents (voters) are incorrect. Now you might like everything the fed govt has done to date, but I sure do not support paying for abortions with my tax money or paying for illegals to have multiple babies on my tax dime, or paying for lifetime benefits such as rent, electricity, food, etc, for those who wish to mooch our grand old 'Liberal' system with my tax dollars. Yet my feelings have no consideration to your POTUS or his D.O.J and therefore they are ignoring me as a legal tax paying voter, in favor of money to their chosen by any means necessary. I am a firm believer in green energy but I would not have given money to Solyndra, who was caught destroying materials funded with my tax dollars, just bc they went bankrupt, that's just bad business and should have left a bad taste in anyones mouth. Where was the accountability Obama promised us? Where was the open govt Obama promised us? Where was the border fence Obama supported when he ran? Where is the fiscal conservatism Obama said was a necessity for any POTUS? Some cases of promises kept does not the re-election win. Where was the AFFORDABLE healthcare he discussed? According to most on here their prices have done nothing but increased ( why would they lie) and why should more tax dollars be spent to insure those that do not wish to have personal accountability to work and pay for their own insurance?

P.S the very tool to attempt to discredit a lie is to bring it out into the open and twist it to your advantage. The article clearly, as many have noted and you have ignored, neglects to mention the tone of other candidates hits on twitter,fbook,etc. We as a people tend to gloss over the things that are not in contention and argue about those we contest hotly. Therefore if most people believe in Ron Pauls ideas and feel they are very simple and beneficial, while say Romneys latest statement to the press was seen as just dumb, then people will likely post more about Romney and any dumb remarks he made than any none contested remarks R.P made. Or did you really skip abnormal psych in college? Its very enlightening as to the human track of decision making. Another example, and I hope this hits some nerves, I am a Spurs fan and will fight tooth and nail to cheer for my team and get very angry when they lose (sort of, I am a good sport mostly), however if it looks like they are not going to be competing in the playoffs, and the Mavericks are, I will buy tickets to their playoffs and cheer for the Mavericks instead, even though I really hate the Mavs. So when people are being told R.P has no chance, they will begin to look for another possible candidate to support, bc people are under the impression they can not possibly write in or just not vote for anyone in that election. Bc they feel their VOTE MUST COUNT TOWARD THE WINNER!! Rather than making a statement that all of these candidates chosen are not what THEY want. I am honestly berating myself for having voted Obama instead of writing in someone else, But it was him or McCain and I choose the one I knew would win. Very poor decision.

TFG,

Your my kind of gal!!!

Rather than making a statement that all of these candidates chosen are not what THEY want.

Yep, Moral Relativism,

ie, I would rather be a perceived as a winner, than an actual winner.

This is just one of the attitudes that pass for political knowledge in this country, the Electability issue is one of allowing someone else the right to chose your candidate, you just agree to go along for the ride on their judgement...

The definition of sheeple.... (just the way the media wants it)

Theresa T

If it were only that simple. Watch the questionable primary and the questionable voting continue and see if you still want to make that statement.

Ron Paul is the Washington Generals of politics.

More like the 'short bus of politics'.

Do you mean like?

Calling out "blowback" in the seventies, and guess what? We get attacked.

Calling out the tech bubble?

Calling out the housing bubble?

Started pointing out that the FED was devaluing our money in the 1970's? Green pepper in 1980 was .15 now its a buck?

Called out violations of the Constitution in the 90's, now we have Patriot Act, Indefinite Detention, HR 347, Health care mandate forcing us to give money to private companies?

WE ARE BROKE?

Yeah, what a moron he is. We could and are doing much worse than electing a man who has never been wrong about major issues.

It's amazing how Nostradamus made all these "predictions" AFTER the events happened...

Documented video on the house floor doesn't count? Now who's the sheepie?

Come on John, I think we can both admit that his "predictions" were as vague as Miss Cleo's...

Toasty McGrath

How was this for vague?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnuoHx9BINc

John, very good VIDEO. LOL, Someone showed AMAZEMENT that he actually predicted what would happen and all people can do is talk about his age and the facts that his radical ideals are just too old fashioned. Lets just correct these impression real fast, he is older, yes and he also has loads of experience dealing with a difficult and corrupt congress. And had more of those oh so intelligent congressmen/women listened to him and had cared enough to actually do their jobs of protecting our freedoms and our money, we would not be here today calling R.Ps ideals old fashioned bc they would be current ways of the govt. Next people will start saying freedom of speech is overrated and old fashioned and a radical idea, 'why would you need guns, we will protect you, letting you have a gun is just a radical idea, when we have a massive military to protect you.' Some folks need to wise up to what radical ideas created this nation of freedom. Our constitution was a radical document in its time and yet we fight to keep it. So guess what folks, your a radical even if you will not admit it. Free speech was a radical idea, freedom of the press was a radical idea, and freedom of religion is still a radical idea. 20 years ago the internet was a radical and highly disputed idea bc it was thought to give more power to the people, more access to information and media sources and was actually believed (if you can get this) to be potentially threatening to the govt. Now luckily we have the internet and alas the govt is still trying to stifle it, watch it, decode it, etc. Or so a lot of people believe. Be careful what you call radical and crazy folks bc our nation is a radical and crazy mass of multiple races, religions and opinions and technically we should not be able to co-exist without daily civil wars, and yet we do. So step off your high horses of 'well he's just a crazy old man' and try looking into history and seeing what crazy old men did for you and how you view them now as heroes, saviors and founding fathers who for all intents and purposes committed treason just to give you the freedom to get where you are today.

You mean the "facts" that the MSM spews?

If his supporters looked at facts, they wouldn't be his supporters.

I agree with Toasty. Some people like rare steak and some like well done. I'm a 67 year old white independant Texan. In the last 40 years I've read a great deal of Dr. Paul's writings and attended many rallies. I can't say I've ever found anything we agree on.

Well look, there are a few things I agree with Paul on, but his opposition to some of our most basic constitutional principles, much less his opposition to the civil rights that so many people gave their lives to bring us all, means that I could never in good conscience support him.

Toast - what 'opposition to some of our most basic Constitutional principles'? Which ones? And Paul's 'opposition to Civil Rights' - as if that was a bad thing - just shows you haven't done any research into it at all. If you were interested: The Civil Rights Act was a mandate to force people to cooperate and to force them to change their thinking. Many scholars and many blacks today believe they would have been far better off with an initial 'separate but equal policy', allowing blacks to receive education and other services on equal terms, rising over time to a status that would have been easier to attain and having far superior outcomes resulting in true equality. Force creates force, not cooperation. It takes time for views to change and greater time when prior force was imposed (southern states secession from the Union leading to the Civil War and a southern democrat racist agenda along with the KKK that blocked rights for blacks until Eisenhower), but they do, as we see over the course of our history regarding many social issues. Force divides, it doesn't bring people together, as evidenced in an ongoing and unsettled debate over inequality regarding race in America today. Why is it England, who had slavery, was able quickly, efficiently and effectively to settle issues of racism in the 1800’s, while America continues to flounder? And how about why Paul believes the Civil War in America may have been avoided? Interested in another Paul answer based on reason on those issues, too, or would you rather just continue putting him down?

I deal in facts, not perceptions. Facts are something I have noticed Paul supporters are short on.

Let's correct this statement...

I deal in perceptions, not facts. Perceptions are something I have noticed Paul supporters are short on.

or this...

I deal in perceptions, not facts. Facts are something I haven't noticed Paul supporters being short on.

Well, he pretty blatantly opposes the First Amendment, for a start...

And this may come as a shock, but Americans DO actually value civil rights. Opposing them like Ron Paul does is just one more reason he will never get elected president. Ever.

Better get your facts straight. Ron Paul is a true Constitutionalist. He has stated that the present and past congresses have been destroying our rights and is against that. He is all for the first aswell as the rest of the amendments of the constitution.

Of course he does. He strictly defends the Constitution... Except the First Amendment... And the Fourteenth Amendment... And...

Paul's opposition to civil rights is another indication that his ideas were better suited to the 18th Century than in the 21st. The 1964 Civil Rights Act was probably the most significant piece of legislation of the 20th Century, putting an end to outright discrimination against former slaves brought to this country against their wills and exploited for their labor. For 100 years after the end of the Civil War, Americans persisted in treating Blacks as second class citizens. Law cannot change what is in a person's head or heart, but it can establish that the denial of a job or a promotion is not right if it's based on racial reasons. In other words, I completely disagree with Alim and with the Pauls, including Ron's dimbulb son Rand, who shares Dr. Paul's weird opinions about the purpose and scope of the 14th Amendment.

Rocky, you wrote: "Ron Paul is a true Constitutionalist. He has stated that the present and past congresses have been destroying our rights and is against that. He is all for the first aswell as the rest of the amendments of the constitution." It seems like you don't know much independently and have just accepted Dr. Paul's conclusions.

Ron Paul has a very strange view of the 10th Amendment which certainly isn't shared by the Supreme Court. He is a virulent states' right supporter who claims that Congress has infringed on individual citizens and the individual states, and its power to legislate is far more limited than the Supreme Court has held it to be. Congress may enact legislation on any matter that is arguably in the "stream of national commerce." There are only two real limitations: (1) does the legislation touch on something within the reach of the commerce clause; and (2) does the legislation violate those individual rights embodied in the Bill of Rights. Contrary to Dr. Paul's uneducated opinions about the 10th Amendment, everything else is constitutional and hence enforceable.

Dr. Paul's views on the religious clauses of the First Amendment, especially concerning the Establishment Clause, are completely off the wall. According to Ron, "The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance." This is demonstrably wrong, according to no less an authority than the United States Supreme Court, which has consistently recognized that the purpose of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment was to build or erect a wall separating Church and State, according to Thomas Jefferson, whose group crafted the clause:

"[A]t the first session of the first Congress the amendment now under consideration was proposed with others by Mr. Madison. It met the views of the advocates of religious freedom, and was adopted. Mr. Jefferson afterwards, in reply to an address to him by a committee of the Danbury Baptist Association (8 id. 113), took occasion to say: 'Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions,-I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.' Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured." Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 164 (1878) (emphasis added).

"This Court first reviewed a challenge to state law under the Establishment Clause in Everson v. Board of Ed. of Ewing, 330 U.S. 1, 67 S.Ct. 504, 91 L. Ed. 711 (1947).1 Relying on the history of the Clause, and the Court's prior analysis, Justice Black outlined the considerations that have become the touchstone of Establishment Clause jurisprudence: Neither a State nor the Federal Government can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither a State nor the Federal Government, openly or secretly, can participate in the affairs of any religious organization and vice versa.2 "In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and State.' "Everson, 330 U.S., at 16, 67 S. Ct., at 511 (quoting Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 164, 25 L. Ed. 244 (1878)). Even the Everson dissenters agreed: "The Amendment's purpose ... was to create a complete and permanent separation of the spheres of religious activity and civil authority by comprehensively forbidding every form of public aid or support for religion." 330 U.S., at 31–32, 67 S. Ct., at 519–520 (Rutledge, J., dissenting, joined by Frankfurter, Jackson, and Burton, JJ.); accord, Lee v. Weisman, 505 US 577, 599-600 (1992)(emphasis added).

Sorry, Paul supporters, but Dr. Paul is a legally uneducated, constitutional hick who butchers the true meaning of the Constitution to suit his own beliefs.

Michael L. Marowitz
J.D., J.S.M. (Master's degree in law with emphasis on constitutional law, Stanford Law School, 1981)

So, Michael, are you trying to state that because someone can read, they have no right to interpret the Constitution?

I believe that is a very flawed argument since not all that signed it were lawyers. And in fact, I think it is part of the problem in Washington that we hire lawyers at all to represent us. People who are paid to argue either side of an issue with no moral compass other than the will to win.

I may not be an ambulance chaser, but I surely know what is going to happen if I bend over.

John--non-responsive to Michael and Tom Jeffersons argument