The Triangle

Did you read "Animal Farm"? Are you a complete socialist or only a little b it socialist? How is it that it's up the the US Federal government to prevent poverty and provide funding for so much around the world? Last I checked, the Constitution did not allow the federal government to redistribute wealth.

Furthermore, Ron Paul has made it clear that he does not favor a Constitutional amendment related to marriage. He believes that marriage is something that the government (especially the federal government) has no right to be involved with - it's a religious issue.

It's hard work refuting all of the BS articles that are written about this honest, wise, patriot...

I feel Ron Paul would only make the federal government smaller, every thing you said should be handled at the state and local level; as it says in the constitution. Ron Paul will win in New Hampshire, and he may also place at least third in Iowa. He is going to have every Anti-Iraq, Anti-Patriot Act Republican in New Hampshire and Iowa vote for him; this is made possible by our money donations to our candidate for president. One stat you might want to check out is the 2004 Republican presidential primary numbers, I heard that they were only 6 % of registered republicans, I also heard that these are the people who are being polled, and even now having Ron Paul get 5% of their vote. The media is pushing for an end to the Iraq War, Hillary Clinton would draw their ire, we would win; our defense would no wise decrease, in fact it would be better protected with our military at home defending our borders and having troops at the ready, but we need to dismantle the, American payed for, global military police force. I think you are setting yourself up to look really stupid man.

I gather from this editorial that you're in favor of taking my hard-earned money in taxation and distribute it to others who didn't work for it. Get out of college and into the real world, Pointdexter, and you'll change that tune real quick. Until then, I'm sure there's a kegger at the frat that you can go to this afternoon.

Try reading his positions before publishing stuff like this. Ron Paul is about returning fiscal decisions to the 50 States. He's not an isolationist. In fact, Ron Paul advocates having trading relations with other countries. He's a non-interventionist. Watch last night's interview of Ron Paul by Wolf Blitzer on CNN. I'm sure it's on YouTube by now.

Regarding the FDA's importance I am attaching a link to a Nov. 6. 2007 article from ABC News with reference to state food inspection programs that are doing more to protect their citizen's food supply than the federal government is or has.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Consumer/story?id=3825144&page=1

I do not believe that destruction of food inspections is what Ron Paul is advocating for. Far more strict state and local government protecting it's own and setting their own standards is more like it. If it's not done correctly then the people have a better chance of "throwing out the bums" then at a federal level. There is no electoral college on a state level elections.

There used to be a joke when I was a child that my parent's and their friends used to tell. I haven't heard it in awhile and I wonder why.

It was a list of the top five lies told...one was "the check's in the mail"...."I'll respect you in the morning"....a couple of other's I don't remember, but the last one was the clincher..."I'm from the government and I'm here to help you".

Why do you think they told it?

I'm not sure you stated your case how RP would impoverish people. After all, according to Fox news, the economy is GREAT!! Unemployment is almost non-existent and consumer confidence is high. Is RP going to stop people from working at WalMart and Taco Bell?

You forgot to end that with: "And that's why I'm voting for Rudy Guiliani!"

Yes. I am aware that you are a socialist that won't be voting for any Republican, but it would certainly be a fitting end.

The problem with your story is that people now looking into Paul after the new media coverage will stumble on your article and a WTF? will sound all across America at how completely dishonest you just were.

No, these weren't just your opinions. These were flat out lies. I refuse to believe you are that lazy or that ignorant that you didn't realize that what you are writing is false.

Have fun. I hope the Ron Paul supporters don't eat you alive.

"He has stood against government regulation, but favors defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman, and voted to ban adoption for same-sex couples."

No. Ron Paul has consistently said that marriage should not even be handled (and by extension, regulated) by the government, especially the Federal government. Regulating adoption is also not a power granted to the federal government by the constitution, and Dr. Paul would recognize no authority to do so.

"Paul's views are great for big corporations and the extremely wealthy, but for the rest of us his policies would completely eliminate the possibility for upward social mobility"
Socialism doesn't provide social mobility.

Wow... you have no idea what you are talking about. Paul is about freedom, limited federal government and letting the states local governments decide what best for that state. Get your facts straight before reporting. People need to take some personal responsibility. If New Orleans would have had keep their own money rather than paying tax to the feds... then they would have been able to protect themselves. The money has got to come from somewhere and donations and local support are much better than funding a distance government to rely on who is more concerned about 10 second political sound bites. About the FDA, Dietary supplements do just fine without Federal government regulation... and if 75% of all drugs are based on a substance found in plants... why are these products more effective and successful at keeping people from being sick and helping those that are? So get real. I have never voted and cannot wait to get to the polls this year. And to all those moron reporters that think Paul is about anarchy... get real. He stands for a smaller government, one with rules... not anarchy. I believe Americans can do a pretty good job of taking care of themselves and not be nannied by the fed. And that goes for the rest of the world as well.

I'm sorry but i think you're way off base here, on many counts but most importantly his domestic poicy is that there should be no federal government oversight on healthcare and education. State government should handle it, state governments are constitutionally responsible for these things.

I for one am sick and tired of being told that I don't know what Ron Paul stands for!

I support him because I DO know exactly what he stands for. Unlike other candidates he says so, clearly, without waffle or distraction, along with logical and moral arguments why he holds that position.

First we were a just a few "spamming" with "bots", then the money proved otherwise, so now we are a large group of people enthusiastically supporting a candidate, with money, despite the fact we don't know who he is or what he stands for?

No, the simple fact is this "loony-toon fringe candidate with no support" has a LOT more support than the mainstream media is willing to let on.

If anyone is delusional about their favored candidates it is those who believe any democrat would be any different from Bush/Clinton/Bush/..?

On the topics that matter, foreign policy, economics, personal liberty, Ron Paul is the only candidate that matters.

BS ... 80% of Americans OPPOSE increased taxes and communist health care systems. You lie. And I'm not a big Ron Paul fan, but you're wrong.

Ron Paul is right on.
He would help poor people keep their wealth through his tax policy and economic policy.

Big goverment programs in education only hurt our state school systems.

No, you are right Ron Paul is not a socialist and I support him for that reason. If you want socialism feel free to vote for George Bush(oh, forgot he can't run again) or Hillary. They are the ones that will really rob you of your freedoms and wreck the economy.

Sounds like you should strive for clarity. I suggest you invite the doctor for an interview.

Very simplistic journalism, the real threat to poor people and Social security recipients is the inflation tax, yes the one where prices go up so fast the benefits do not keep up. 2.3 percent raise for SSI yet prices because of government incompetency and spending soar 10 percent or more. Its the FEDS answer to everything, steal savings by devaluing rather than taxing. You want free healthcare, sure we all do but nothing is free, all that will happen is we counterfiet the money and steal. How about taxing? No way,right. How about taxing for the war instead of counterfieting bills? No way , right. Get an education on how the government is run these days. No different than an irresponsible credit card user, destined for bankruptcy accept that the FEDS can pay with new bills and simply steal your buying power. I for one am sick of it.

could you please, for integrity's sake, change the title of this disinformative nonsense to "my personal one sided opinion on a topic i haven't spent any time researching at all"?

geez where to start:

social programs. ok. dr. paul has consistently mentioned in every debate and interview he's given in atleast the last 6 months that his first order or business would be to end the iraq war and began closing military bases around the world (ie korea) to which we serve no purpose. this would allow us to save phenomenally, and we would be able to take care of all those dependent on social programs. His goal is to eventually ween people off of the system by bringing value back to our dollar (phasing out the fed). if our dollar becomes worth something again, and individuals no longer have to give 1/3 of their's to a flawed system of legal robbery, there will be more incentive for your average american to save money. one thing you seem to completely overlook (suprise suprise) is how much of money is squandered in your precious social programs. i mean think about it. your hard earn money is taken on the basis of producing a service for you. but instead it's sent to washington, where you have to put your faith in one individual to get this money back for you. ITS STUPID.

and the gay rights nonsense is just insulting. and another thing you are wrong about. dr. paul believes it is every individual's personal right to form a civil union. hate crime legislation is ridiculous. all it says is that if i get jumped by 4 people, my pain is secondary to the pain of a gay person who is jumpped by the same 4 people. and how do you determine a hate crime? what if someone just randomly gets in a fight with someone they dont even know is gay? is that a hate crime? all intentional violent crimes are committed out of hatred. stop insulting the human race by buying into this political stupidity.

this "blog" is laughably innacurate. just do yourself a favor and pick up the consitution some time. read it. understand the ideas this country was founded on. understand states rights and it's significance to the american people. understand that this is not an old idea. however the socialist propaganda you've spewed onto the internet is. there have been centuries of tyrrants from around the globe who have attempted to centralize control of other people's lives. and because of the naivety of their public those societies brought themselves to their own knees. we've evolved since then, lets start displaying it.

and do some homework.

Has it ever occurred to you that socialist government programs are what keeps poor people poor? I'll make a case and point... assistance should not be done away with completely, but it should be portioned as sparingly as possible. Such as the case with my mom, whom is deaf and legally blind, and therefore can't do a whole lot to function in a workplace environment. She gets SSDI and food assistance. Fine...

Now let's go down the street to 22 year old single-mom jane doe, whom is not smart enough to keep her legs closed, nor use a condom, so she has 5 kids by 5 different guys... Is she automatically entitled to the benefits our tax dollars fund just because she is too stupid to act responsibly?

Let me tell you, I grew up in the poorhouse, I hated the other kids for having all the cool toys and eating good food I never heard of. I resented my own family for not overcoming their shortfalls and trying harder to succeed. It drove me to be totally independent. I'll be damned if I'm asking the government for anything, because the moment you ask them for something, you give them control over you. I fought hard to get an education and start a career,(which I AM STILL PAYING FOR MYSELF) and I resent these lazy shits out there who don't want to put forth the effort to better themselves. Instead "the gub'ment's paying for it", my taxes!!!!! I work for that money these assholes are taking for granted. And if I could end the free ride for them I would.

If you want to bend over, surrender your sovereign rights and liberties for a little bit of regulation and what you deem as "fair" treatment for all, then move to canada, get cancer, and call me in a year if you're still alive. I know of two people whom have lost their lives because of waiting lists created by their social medicine regime.

Don't be a friggin idiot and let this government take control of you. For the people by the people remember?

I'll wager that the author doesn't know that Dr. Paul voted against the marriage amendment. I know for a fact that the author is unaware that Congressman Paul doesn't desire de-regulation of drugs, but to return the power to do this to the states. What he's telling us is that, if left up to the poor, stupid states, things will descend into chaos because as we all 'know,' unless regulations are imposed by a single large bureaucracy, that the bumpkins who live in states (hint: the same bumpkins that elect federal office-holders) would simply stop caring and begin to support putting lead and mercury in our foods.

Something further that the author fails to illuminate in this uninformed hit piece: The Department of Education is completely ineffectual and only hampers local school districts from operating in a way that is effective for their own states. Does he even know that schools are funded by local taxes and operated by autonomous organizations called "school boards?" Once again he accuses the states of being inept but for some reason, the fed is not. Why is a standard correct simply because it's a standard? Why is ONE solution better than FIFTY solutions? Where is the innovation that diversity brings to the table?

I guess Mr. Gero is unaware that Paul seeks to remove corporate influence from government, which will be a severe blow to defense contractors, oil companies and their ilk. But then, he doesn't seem to interested in the truth, merely perception - because it's more fantastic and will create more interest in his creation; the latest Ron Paul hit piece. This will advance his career aspirations.

And yes, you guessed it, Ron Paul wants to return the powers of health care and welfare back where they belong - to the states. Once again the author assumes that the states are somehow less responsible for affairs in their own neighborhood than some bureaucrat who lives 1000 miles away in Washington. Yes, he's calling you stupid, residents of the states.

Apparently Mr. Gero feels that his fear-mongering that is based on a misunderstanding of this candidate will be an effective tool in preventing others from determining for themselves who they would vote for. By that criteria, he's already qualified to work as a journalist in the for-profit print media.

But let's hope that before he graduates, he learns the true meaning of journalistic integrity and the importance of understanding issues so that the truth can be reported.

I'll wager that the author doesn't know that Dr. Paul voted against the marriage amendment. I know for a fact that the author is unaware that Congressman Paul doesn't desire de-regulation of drugs, but to return the power to do this to the states. What he's telling us is that, if left up to the poor, stupid states, things will descend into chaos because as we all 'know,' unless regulations are imposed by a single large bureaucracy, that the bumpkins who live in states (hint: the same bumpkins that elect federal office-holders) would simply stop caring and begin to support putting lead and mercury in our foods.

Something further that the author fails to illuminate in this uninformed hit piece: The Department of Education is completely ineffectual and only hampers local school districts from operating in a way that is effective for their own states. Does he even know that schools are funded by local taxes and operated by autonomous organizations called "school boards?" Once again he accuses the states of being inept but for some reason, the fed is not. Why is a standard correct simply because it's a standard? Why is ONE solution better than FIFTY solutions? Where is the innovation that diversity brings to the table?

I guess Mr. Gero is unaware that Paul seeks to remove corporate influence from government, which will be a severe blow to defense contractors, oil companies and their ilk. But then, he doesn't seem to interested in the truth, merely perception - because it's more fantastic and will create more interest in his creation; the latest Ron Paul hit piece. This will advance his career aspirations.

And yes, you guessed it, Ron Paul wants to return the powers of health care and welfare back where they belong - to the states. Once again the author assumes that the states are somehow less responsible for affairs in their own neighborhood than some bureaucrat who lives 1000 miles away in Washington. Yes, he's calling you stupid, residents of the states.

Apparently Mr. Gero feels that his fear-mongering that is based on a misunderstanding of this candidate will be an effective tool in preventing others from determining for themselves who they would vote for. By that criteria, he's already qualified to work as a journalist in the for-profit print media.

But let's hope that before he graduates, he learns the true meaning of journalistic integrity and the importance of understanding issues so that the truth can be reported.

and i failed to mention health care.

ok judging by your "opinion" piece, you, along with many others (this is where you and the paul supporters may actually agree) believe the us gov't is pretty inefficient, right?? they screw up alot of what is handed to them, correct? ok so with that said: WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO PUT EVERYONE'S HEALTH IN THE HANDS OF OUR GOVERNMENT? again, check some history. and while yer at it, see what a wonderful job big governments have done with environmental issues. i'll give you a great starting point: chernobyl. our government is currently suppressing some of the most important research into alternative medicines to date. the only chance we have of really publicizing these findings is to get our government completely out of the medical system. DO. YOUR. HOME. WORK.!!!!!

You've missed the whole point. Most Ron Paul supporters don't agree with Ron Paul on more than 60-70% of the issues, but that doesn't matter. We like him because he's honest. He isn't giving us sugar-coated promises that will never be kept. He's just telling us his philosophy, and what he will try to accomplish as president. Do you really believe that the president alone has the power to abolish the Department of Education, or the Department of Energy? If you took the time to actually listen to Ron Paul, you'd know that's not possible. On all these issues you've pointed out, Ron Paul says we need to build a consensus opinion in America to act on any of his ideas. The presidency will give him the oppurtunity to educate Americans about the problems with federal agencies that don't address the needs of common people. I don't know why anyone would be opposed to abolishing the Department of Education. Since it's inception, our schools have been turning out idiots at an increasingly rapid rate. The states quite obviously did a better job educating us. Personally, I support him because he wants to repeal the unconstitutional Federal Reserve Act, and have competing currencies. No other candidate mentions this, so none of them appeal to me.

You seem well read on Ron Paul and I commend you for mentioning most of his domestic policies, which get overshadowed from time to time.

I have to disagree with you my saying that most of his supporters are unaware of his domestic policies though. I run a grou of about 70 Ron Paul supporters and everyone of them started supporting Ron Paul because of his limited-government approach at home. His opposition to the war in Iraq was just icing on the cake.

I will not try to persuade you that the Dept. of Education is not necessary, even though it wasn't created until 1980. And I will not try to persuade you that free-market economies actually help the poor more than government programs. I respect your opinions and you are free to believe whatever you like.

It was a good article since you took the time out to research most of his issues, more than most other people have done.

You're right...and wrong. Yes, Paul is a strict constitutionalist who believes that government is either inefficient or misplaced in many of these roles.

With that said, he is also a realist, and he understands that we have created a society of entitlement in addition to acting as an imperialist nation. If you have been listening lately, you would know that Paul has been saying we cannot afford to do both, so his stance is fix the foreign policy, save a windfall of money, and still be able to take care of people who depend on government, and allow young people to get out of Social Security if we want, because the money won't be there when we are ready to collect anyway.

He also understands that as President, he can't singlehandedly abolish or limit government agencies without the consent of Congress and the will of the American people. This is the beauty of a Ron Paul presidency. A person who actually understands The Office of the Presidency in relation to other branches of government.


Also, your assessment on homosexuals is dead wrong, Paul is more liberal on this than any of the other Republicans. He has stated over and over again it is not the right of the federal government to legislate on this issue. When asked to weigh in on the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy at a debate earlier this summer, and asked if homosexual behavior is a problem in the military, he shot right back, "Is heterosexual behavior a problem in the military?"

You've been quite badly brain-washed by statist ideologies. I suggest looking more deeply at some of his key stances on the economy and reading Austrian Economics to understand why most of these socialist and regulatory policies you support are fundamentally flawed.

For a better, more thoughtful discussion of Ron Paul's stance on gay marriage, check out the following discussion:

http://inrepair.net/2007/05/31/my-correspondence-with-ron-paul-about-gay-rights/

Oh Justin,
your socialist views will only last about 5 more years, or so. Then you will realize, as I did, that good old capitalism is the key to everything. Sure in a perfect world, we would all work together to take care of each other, and all do our part for a perfect society. But, we don't live in a perfect world. What you must realize, is that most people are lazy and greedy. Welfare programs do less to help poor people than anything. Give a hungry man a fish and he will eat today, teach him to fish and he will be hungry no more. As far as health care goes, ask yourself, what would happen if the government provided us all with health care? Well I'll tell you. Massive regulation on what you eat, drink, and how you live your life. Do you think the government will stand by and let you eat a double cheese burger every day if they are going to have to pay for your triple bypass. No chance. So if you want big brother flagging your fifth beer as a violation or your "wellness" factor, then vote for Hitlery. If you don't, vote Ron Paul.

I disagree with your statement that most Ron Paul supporters really don't know much about his stands on the issues. Most Ron Paul supporters back him because of his positions on those issues.

Ron Paul isn't against education or helping people in need. He just thinks that the federal government has proved that they are very ineffective at doing these things and he thinks that the states or the free market could do a more effecient job.

The Constitution limits the federal government to doing much, much less than what they are now doing. Ron Paul just wants to get the federal government back to where it was supposed to be.

I trust a society of free individuals to be able to help their fellow man on a voluntary basis more than I trust the federal government to be able to help through forced charity.

How could stopping inflation damage the poor and needy?? Give me a break! Paul says don't blame price gouging for 3.00$ a gal of gas, Blame the government, they think they can print money out of thin air. The result is 3.00$ a gal of gas. Take inflation back to 2000 gas would still be only 1.80$ a gal.

Save the constitution when was that a bad thing?

The Bill of rights don't even exist with the patriot act!

Ron Paul is the only guy worth voting for. Any one with a brain can see this.

This is a very thoughtful and well-written article, but I take issue with your assumptions about health care. You claim that we "should be thinking about health care as a basic human right." At its core, that statement says that people who know how to practice medicine (doctors) and people who produce medicinal remedies (drug companies) should be forced to provide their services to anyone and everyone, regardless of their ability to pay. Is health care somehow not subject to scarcity, like every other good or service in an economy? Also, if health care should be a basic human right, why shouldn't food, clothing, or shelter be as well? I'd really appreciate a response.

On a side note, I find it interesting that 80% of Americans are willing to send their own money to Washington to have politicians and bureaucrats figure out an equitable health care system, and yet Dr. Paul's belief that charity could cover many Americans is considered unrealistic. Why couldn't those 80% send their money to charities instead of Washington, where a lot of their money would be divvied away for things like corporate subsidies and $30,000 Congressional gold medals?

Basically a hit piece by an informed socialist. Perhaps if you had of been aware of Pauls grilling of Ben Bernanke you would know his real stance on the middle class.

Its the devaluation of the dollar that is killing the middle class. Tax cuts for the wealthiest coupled with printoing money out of thin air has taxed the savings of middle class Americans. Perhaps you should take Econ 101 before you write another uninformed piece of garbage.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/21688194#

What? You have several inaccuracies in here.

1) He does NOT favor a definition of marriage at the federal level. He believes STATES should decide, and ideally, believes it should be a personal and religious matter.

2) He did NOT vote against gay adoption. He voted for an amendment to a DC appropriations bill to "prohibit any funding for the joint adoption of a child between individuals who are not related by blood or marriage." Hardly a ban on gay adoption!

3) Even though he is against the FDA, he can't get rid of it without congressional approval (just like he can't appoint someone without approval). He opposes to the FDA regulating medicines that helps people and yet they OK medicines that have killed people.

4) On education, again, he can't get rid of it himself. However he can appoint someone who would get the hand of government out of state and local schools as often. Remember No Child Left Behind? I've lived through this program, it's bull. Education before the department of education America was #1 in education around the world, now we are low in the international rankings. You seem to think if we got rid of the department then students will fail, state and local governments wouldn't do anything, and parents would let their children rot. This is simply not the case.

5) You are kidding about the healthcare issue right? He wants LESS government involved. You know why? Because before the 1970s there weren't as many people in the streets. Hospitals didn't turn away people without healthcare, they didn't turn away the poor, they helped them. Now they have the middle man, government/healthcare industries, to go through. The doctor/patient relationship is horrid and national healthcare would be even worse (as the insurance companies are lobbying it, just like they lobbied for managed care)

6) Corporation would not like Ron Paul. Under a Paul administration, they would have MUCH LESS power. They wouldn't be in bed with the government (haliburton, blackwater,etc.). They couldn't have monopolies here at home (as we have several things that discourage small businesses).

7) The poor and middle class would be prosperous. Why? Well, we have a devaluing dollar, he'd help fix that. He have too much taxes, he'd let people keep their own money (tax credits for education, healthcare, and all!). He'd stop spending hundreds of billions of dollars overseas, and put it into social programs for those who depend on the government.

Young people know something, they won't get anything out of social security. They want out. He'd allow them to opt out. As he would allow people to keep their money, which would keep more of it's value. He'd get rid of government regulation that denies small businesses. I mean, how is this bad for the poor and the middle class?>

I think you need to do more research on the man himself.

There are two points I must make.

1. You fail to acknowledge that your statements about what you believe should be done about certain issues are just your opinion - one among many. They are certainly not the unassailable facts you imply them to be. This is not a critical issue, but it does demonstrate a fundamental hubris on your part which I find somewhat distasteful.

2. Of far greater significance is that you describe what you perceive Dr. Paul's policies and beliefs to be, without even once acknowledging that these descriptions are - once again - just your own understanding of those policies. Have you even once considered the possibility that you might have misunderstood some or all of what Dr. Paul stands for? Well my friend, as it turns out that is exactly what has happened. Fortunately it is easily corrected.

Dr. Paul is a strict constitutionalist and his positions on federal legislation are invariably and uncompromisingly based on one question: is this allowed under the constutionally enumerated powers of the federal governement? If it is not, he votes No.

A classic example is his vote against the Rosa Parks medal. Does the consitution give Congress the power to (at the point of a gun) take money from you and use it to purchase a gold medal for Rosa Parks? No, it does not. Dr. Paul therefore voted against this, while at the same time offering to contribute $100 of his own money together with all the other members because he considers Rosa Park a true hero.

This is the the true and principled man you fail to recognize and that failure is compounded by your complete lack of understanding of how the current federal system has metastesized into an unholy fascist alliance between Congress, The Federal Reserve and "Big Business".

Far from hurting the poor, Dr. Paul's proposed policies would free up billions of dollars in currently wasted funds which could then be re-applied on a more local (state, county & muniucipal) level to assist those most in need.

Hopefully, you will grow to understand that Dr. Paul is the only one with the economic, political, and personal integrity to get this country out of this mess (e.g., virtual bankruptcy, senseless war in Iraq, immorality). I wish you the best if you desire to continue in the field of journalism. Thank you.

Wow. You sound sore. Bad day?

Maybe you should do some research before you start printing information that is incorrect.

Just an idea...

I simple correction to this article is in order. Dr. Paul wants to reduce the Federal role in education and health care because those programs are unconstitutional. The states would have the right to implement any number of programs.

"He drew praise from the media for his fundraising record, but critics questioned how long supporters held off donations so that they could attempt to coordinate to draw media attention. "

I have never heard this. What critics questioned how long supporters held off donations? Neither the person who's idea it was to have a special fundraising day (completely independent of Ron Paul's campaign), nor any of the many supporters who supported the idea, discouraged people from donating on other days.

"Although it was hailed as a victory, what we didn't hear in media reports was that the effort failed to raise even half of its goal of $10 million."

I should think that the thing that was newsworthy about it is not that the total didn't meet the optimistic hopes of a particular Ron Paul supporter, but that it broke the record for a single fundraising day.

"Paul has a very loyal following, especially found on the internet (his internet following alone raised $4 million of the $4.3 million), but it seems that many, including Paul's most loyal supporters, don't really know where Ron Paul stands on the issues."

I can't speak for other Ron Paul supporters, just myself and the ones I know personally - and I/we all know exactly where Ron Paul stands on the issues. To put it succinctly, he believes in personal liberty and the law of the land, in other words, the constitution.

As for your first indictment of not raising even half of the 10 million dollars, it was a grassroots movement, with little attention or advertising which got together roughly 18000 supporters from all socio-economic demographics. The website pulled this off in about 18 days. This number was roughly half of the 36,000 people that donated on that day, with something like 20,000 new donors to the campaign. The idea was to get 100,000 people to donate $100. We came up with nearly half the money (not that I donated any more than $10 on that day) from a fifth of the people with the average donation of $103.

As for the issue of homosexual marriage you are off the mark. He recently stated in one of the debates that, well I'll let him state it; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJkvj2Z-KBk .

As for the FDA, I have to wonder what we would do without Consumer Reports or UL. Private organizations which insure that the consumer is protected. The war on drugs is extremely wasteful, and it strips us of, ultimately, the right to our own body and mind, but I would also wonder (in the case of Marijuana at least) how something like High Times may step in? I'm just spit balling here though.

As for the need of a centralized plan for education, where was it ever stated that only one way works in teaching? Where did this idea that such programs as "No Child Left Behind" are good for the kids? From the teachers I have talked to, it praises teaching for tests and skips important rudiments. It takes the power away from the people at the local level to decide what is best for their own children. The DOE only came into existence in 1980, and from what I can tell, the trend in education, while perhaps only a passing comparison, has been a more poorly educated group of young people.

As far as the health care system is concerned, allowing competition in insurance, competition in the market (obviously will not happen in emergencies, though I have seen it happen, where people in my area will go an extra 20 miles to avoid a poor local hospital), reducing forced procedures and tests from Medicare which in turn does not pay back to the doctor as much as most of the visits or procedures cost, causing the prices to inflate so that doctors can stay afloat, makes more sense than everyone paying more for health care through the hidden cost of more taxation. Also, the incentive of the employer to offer health insurance as a benefit would be lost, drastically hurting many lower middle class Americans. And as for your understanding of rights, look into negative and positive rights, and see which is most fundamental and see where health care falls.

As for Taxation, a family of four that owns a home in this country making the median income will work half a year just to pay local, state, and federal taxes, all the while the inflation created by fiat currency lowers their buying power. As an example, look at the price of Gold or Oil over the last few years, which has continued to rise, not because less is coming into existence, the supply has stayed roughly the same and the demand has dropped, but because it takes more dollars to buy the same amount. You may say the USD only affects imports, but if you look at our shelves, barely anything is made here in the USA anymore, because we have become a service based economy, which means higher prices on real goods.

Which brings me to my final point, the Service Based economy of the US has left many people with the mindset that Government should fix their problems just as they have to fix the problems of others, instead of government's true role, which is the defense of the rights of the individual (though this could be debated). People, too busy and tired to solve problems for themselves look to government, and government, with the power of monopoly on services, makes you pay them regardless of service value and removes natural competition which insures the services are of a certain quality.

Perhaps someday you socialists will realize that your well-intentioned policies always hurt the very people you want to help. You simply cannot have a free society and a society where 'health care' is a 'basic human right'. Not if the society is composed of real human beings anyway. 2 and 2 will always equal exactly 4, no matter how much we wish it were otherwise. Please stop hurting the poor. Please stop hurting the sick. They have enough problems already without you piling on.

Kudos to Mr Gero for an article about Ron Paul that does not focus on his "outsider status", but rather focuses on the issues. It is too bad that he misses the point of those issues. Ron Paul has a complete and consistent message. He believes in the Constitution and the Liberty that the document preserves.
Ron Paul's stance on gay marriage is a perfect example. He does not believe that the federal Government should be involved in this issue at all. This issue should be left up to the state, and in fact Paul's opinion stated even further is that no marriage, gay or traditional, should be regulated by the government. Government interference causes more problems than it ever solves. That is the great wisdom of our Founding Fathers. The federal government should stay within their limits, and let local and state governments deal with the issues the way the local residents see fit. What we have now is a monopoly of government services with all the bloated inefficiencies and lack of personal choice that a monopoly provides. It was bad enough when the monopoly we dealt with was Bell Telephone and we had no choice in phones and long distance service, by what stretch of the imagination is it acceptable when it comes to Liberty?

Why don't you people that write these opinions actually review the facts of what Dr. Ron Paul states rather than take it all out of context.

1: Ron Paul is 100% for freedom and civil liberties and follows our constitution and our bill of rights and wants those rights to exist for every american either black, white, pink purple, gay, straight, monority or majority, with that said here are some facts about some of your points.

Let's start with the department of education : The fact is it is useless and does nothing to really help educate the american people. Fact : Ever since the federal goverment installed the Department of education and took the power away from the states we as a nation have been in constant decline in our education levels, we have the worst drop out rate of any country, we rank last i check 13th in the world on education with Canada ranking # 1 which is our next door neighbor why is that? Because when our federal goverment gets involved in things it does nothing but screw them up, create more cost and doesn't accomplish the goal because they have no clue what they are doing.

Now to the FDA : The fact is the FDA is controlled by the corporations for the most part therefore makes it inapplicable in many ways and why? For 1 simple reason it is goverment run and who is our goverment run by the people like it should be? NO it is run by corporations and influence. People are always taking him out of context, what Ron Paul wants is the goverment out of these huge programs and wants to give the power back to the states for the states know better what thier state needs to focus on rather than the federal goverment. You starting to get the reality of this now?

Now lets move on to heathcare in the short version for i am going to leave you the writer to do the rest of your research yourself. What is universal free health care? First of all it is not free by any means and lets use Canada for a great example of this. In Canada people here pay a 14% sales tax to cover healthcare, they also pay 67% more in gas and oil tax on top of that, I'm not done, they also pay and additional 73% in alcohol and tabacco tax just to name a few to cover this cost. The last report showed that Canadians on average paid $12,362 more per year in these taxes just for so called free universal healthcare, now think about that, what is free about that? The average person can insure thier entire family with the best healthcare on the planet for about $6000 per year per family so where does the additional $6,362 go? Yea i think we all know where it goes don't we. Now think about this and Dr. Ron Pauls points about eliminating the income tax where working families can obtain that 37% of thier labor, do you think that most families in America could afford healthcare then? Ahh yes and guess what it would also become cheaper to buy because the supply and demand would force the price to go way down.

I would have loved to get into more detail and address your other issues but i have other things to do today which is putting up more Ron Paul signs and passing out information about Ron Paul.

I just wish you so called journalists would do a little research before you write stories that distort the truth.

Very nice writing. It's amazing the bias you can inject when quotes are taken out of context...

If folks would like to know Ron, I suggest that they follow the link which I supplied to his articles, pick a category or more than one which is important to them and then read ALL of Ron's words for themselves.

Ron is not your average politician at all. He is a sane individual with a vision of America the way our founding fathers intended. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness-- but one should have to pursue it. We can still come about before we get too far off course.

There is still HOPE FOR AMERICA.

The thing is... you can write whatever you want to try to dissuade people from supporting Dr. Paul, but nobody believes YOU anymore. Most media sources have lost all credibility with thinking Americans. It was clear from day 1 that your nominees were Giuliani and Clinton and you consistently tried to force us to make a choice between those two George Bush clones. Some of us would like to choose our own candidate. The media has become just another tool for dispensing political propaganda and is part of the problem, not the solution. Your opinion on Ron Paul does not matter; we know the truth.

You are factually incorrect on at least one point. Paul did not vote to ban gay adoption. The vote in question was a vote against spending federal funds in Washington, DC, to promote adoption by people not related by blood or by marriage. Hardly a ban on gay adoption.

This article is incorrect on several issues.

Gay Rights: While Ron Paul personally believes marriage should be between a man and a woman. He aslo beleives that this is a STATE ISSUE not a FEDERAL ISSUE. And let the people vote with their feet- same stance as he has on abortion.

Education: Give more money back to the states and people to handle education, and again- take this out of the hands of the Federal Government. They are too big and inefficient to properly handle it.

There are other mistakes, but Ill let my other Ron Paul freinds point them out.

This author has mis-stated and mis-quoted Congressman Paul so many times I do not know where to begin. The first of these is his stand on gay marriage. Congressman Paul has said repeatedly that we do not need a definition of marriage when there is a perfectly good one in any dictionary you care to choose. He has also said that ANY voluntary association, be is civil, social, or economic should be protected under the law. This includes gay marriage, civil unions or whatever you would like to call them.

The writer has demonstrated that he is one who does not understand that having a government agency in charge of something is the most inefficient way possible to accomplish your goals. Take social security for just one example. If the persons now in social security had been allowed to purchase whole life insurance policies or other investment vehicles on their own instead of contributing to a government welfare program, they would have ended up with more income than they receive through social security and been able to designate a beneficiary for this assest when they died. The money would also still be there instead of having been squandered over the years.

The list of this authors misrepresentations concerning Congressman Paul continues on several more points.

I would encourage each of you to do the research for yourself on Congressman Ron Paul.

This author clearly has not done his homework and if he is to be graded on this composition he should receive very poor marks.