well time and circumstance changes your perspective. ron pauls speaks the truth particularly in relation to monetary policy. nevertheless, i'm still liberal on social policy and his policies on gay marriage, abortion irk me.
His stance on abortion is HIS stance on abortion. He's not likely to try and do anything about it. He was an obstetrician, FWIW. Delivered thousands of babies. [video=youtube;QGaBAb_oS84]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGaBAb_oS84[/video]
that was a good speech. Although he started to look like that Jim Carey character from In Living Color (Fire Marshal Bill).
That 1st video I posted was meant to be this one: [video=youtube;Ka1ym7S3F3w]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ka1ym7S3F3w&feature=related[/video]
what would happen if the US went back on the Gold standard? I'm not asking because it's a loaded question (I have no idea if it is), but because I'm curious.
denny- why would u float the notion of cain being pres when he's the antithesis of paul on several issues, i.e the fed, war
i dont think there is politician outside ron paul who has advocated this so there hasnt been any serious discussion
My hope is that Paul wins it, of course. I'm not a republican and won't be voting for Romney or Cain or anyone else whose been in the debates except Ron Paul or Gary Johnson. I asked a question in a thread I started, "why not Cain?" He's pretty close to front runner status these days, the chances are as good for him as any of the rest.
well paul dosnt have a realistic shot of winning the nomination and probably never will in the republican party. he should run as an independent but he doesnt have ross perot money
Consider a hypothetical economy. There are 100 dollars and $100 worth of gold. Those $100 can buy 100 things. Next year, someone makes a 101st thing. So $100 buys 101 things, each costing less than $1. Or that 101st thing has to be given away (or bartered). Make sense? The boom/bust cycles we have are because we have central banks and are not on the gold standard. Not exactly stable. Inflation is the enemy of anyone on a fixed income and friend to anyone owning assets.
Ron Paul is every bit as phony as all the others. How else to explain his registering and running as a republican?
His shot of winning is considerably better than 4 years ago. I'm satisfied with PROGRESS of this kind. Liberal/Libertarian ideas didn't get heard much the tea party started talking about smaller and constitutional government.
i dont get it. u acknowledge that he's not going to win and those three stooges ahead of him dont share his worldview so why doesnt just run as an independent?
