Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues

Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

Obama is NOTHING like Ron Paul....

Posted By: sam on 2008-09-01
In Reply to: He is a constitutionalist? I didn't know that. - I still like Ron Paul's ideas on that better. n


Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

Other related messages found in our database

Obama is the closest to Ron Paul.
The ideas that Ron Paul talked about during his campaign, sound similar (not exactly, but similar) to what Barack talks about.
Barack is different from all the other candidates. If Ron Paul had made it I would vote for him, but he didn't make it, so I have to make the best informed decision I can and vote for someone I can believe in. There is so much hoopla now about whether Obama is going to choose Hillary for this nightmare ticket (oh, im sorry are they calling it a dream ticket? HA). I do not believe for one second he will pick her. If he does he will always have to be watching his back (especially in liu of the comments she made about assassination). He's got a lot of other good people to choose for VP (and people with experience - a quality she is lacking IMO). It is only her followers who keep pushing this "VP thing" for her, but I don't believe its going to happen. I do hope he asks Ron Paul to be in his cabinet.
I prefer Ron Paul..........over Obama or anyone else
I actually really like Ron Paul...

I plan to vote for Barack Obama (bash him if you want - I cannot be swayed!), but I checked out Ron Paul's website awhile back, and it seems like he has a pretty great record.  I wouldn't mind if he got elected.  I think both Obama and Paul seem to have one great quality in common - integrity!!  People can call me foolish if they want, but I go with my gut feeling a lot through life (serving me well so far), and I have a good feeling about both of these men.  They seem like decent, honest men - well, honest for politicians at least. :)

I like Obama because he talks about the things that mean the most to my family, and I really think he has what it takes to bring our divided nation back together somewhat, but if a Republican makes it to office, I hope it's Paul.

Exactly what Ron Paul has said over and
He has repeatedly tried to remind everyone of our constant intrusion into the middle east, invading their soil and they resent us for that. Oil, oil, oil is the reason and I am still amazed at how so many people still believe that is not the reason we're over there. Carter screwed up so bad decades ago and things have just gotten worse since. Obama doesn't know squat about middle eastern affairs and it scares me to death to think he could possibly be running this country one day.
Ron Paul.....
Not nominated because he went against everything the government bureaucracy wanted. He wanted VERY LIMITED government, NO taxes on individual citizens, do away with the IRS, stop taking away civil rights, NO national ID, free markets, and here's the kicker, return to SOUND MONETARY POLICIES. Now, that's why he wasn't nominated but look at the crap hole we're in now.

He never has gone alone with capitol hill's garbage and has stood up against them at every turn.

He has preached the coming of this very thing which we are bailing corporate greed's sorry butts out right now and they just scoff, smirk, and laugh at him.

I sat on this board and read harsh comments about him but yet most of them had to do with nothing more than his age. The very things they are screaming about now are the very things he warned again and again about and begged us to be involved in what is going on with our government and police THEM, not the other way around. But no, we end up with Obama and McCain. What a trade off.
So, do you think Ron Paul is serious

candidate or just a wasted vote?  I'm not liking neither Obama nor McCain at this point, and I've been researching Ron Paul a little bit.  I don't know that I'm leaning towards him, just curious if he has a viable chance in this election. 

It seems worthless to vote for someone you know won't get enough of the votes to actually win the thing.  Any thoughts?  Does Ron Paul have enough supporters to get voted in?

Ron Paul
Yes, he has never veered one bit from his beliefs. He is not swayed by lobbylists and the good ole boy system... he has continued to try to speak for America but sadly enough to deaf ears. Everybody wants tax relief but when this man said he would do everything he could to get the IRS abolished, were there any takers? Yea, but not by the mainstream media. You rarely got to see him on there. At the very least, he would have given us a flat tax. I don't hear either candidate talking flat tax, which would be a very quick fix with lasting benefits. But, of course, that's too easy....government couldn't afford all the crap they're used to dishing up for us.
Ron Paul
G20 by Ron Paul
We do have someone, Ron Paul. sm
He is not a perfect public speaker, but he tells it like it is. During an interview with Cavuto, this guy said if he was an American he would vote for Ron Paul.
Actually, was not a Ron Paul fan, but the more I
Neoconservatism, per Ron Paul.
Vote for Ron Paul
He has my vote, too.
Voting for Ron Paul

Go Ron Paul!

Would love to see a true statesman like Ron Paul be President of our country.

A politician is a man who thinks of the next election; while the statesman
thinks of the next generation. -James Freeman Clarke


I am sure that even shocked Ron Paul. sm
I would say he has some fringe support. I do not think he has any control over that, but overall he is uniting people across parties, colors, ages, religions etc. Who else is doing that? Looking for idealistic youth, you will find a lot of them at Ron Paul rallies.

I do not like Tucker either. I have seen posts on other sites that MSNBC is going to or has fired him. Maybe he does not want to be a paid shill anymore. There is even a Save Tucker website.

I supported Ron Paul too...but
Ron Paul is not in the race anymore. He was a good candidate and I was behind him 100%. Even he is in agreement with Barack on certain issues (no not all of them but some of them). And yes Hillary does need to step down. She will tear the party apart so much that we will be seeing a win for McBush. She has so much bad baggage attached to her that if she was to win the nomination McBush would win hands down over her. Yes everyone should be allowed to vote but we should also know that there will only be two candidates come election time. If anyone wants to write in someone else and not vote for McCain or Obama then its just a waste. If people think its going to make a difference it won't. Those votes will just go in the trash can.
For those who supported Ron Paul sm

Great article in the Rocky Mountain News. 

Ron Paul has performed a great service for the Republican Party

By Jeff Wright

Thursday, June 26, 2008

Largely unappreciated and attacked by his own Party Congressman Ron Paul has, in fact, done a great service to the Republican Party this election season. Paul enlarged the Republican ‘tent’ to again include disaffected core Republicans, Independents and real Conservatives who have been forced outside that ‘tent’ in the last two decades.

Paul uses classic Republican language to defend that point of view which demands small-government, constitutionally-oriented, fiscally-responsible and true free-market adherents actually be recognized and accommodated, rather than just paying lip-service to those positions.

Most importantly, that message has motivated a generation of young people to join the Party who are technically savvy, constitutionally-smart and extremely enthusiastic about spreading the message of freedom, liberty and free markets. They have been inspired by a candidate who really understands and believes in a Republic and, one would think, be embraced by incumbent Republican Party members.

However that, it seems, is not the case. Too many existing Republicans do not understand the language of those positions any more and can’t speak it in public. It also seems the NeoCon members are intent on forcing out of the party the very people that represent its future. I urge my Republican brothers and sisters to reject such collectivist, herd mentality which is indicative of Democrats while being logically and historically repugnant to Republicans.

In the 1960s and 70s that same “insurgent” group within the party was represented by Goldwater/Ronald Reagan conservatives. For those of you who don’t remember, the “Reaganites” were ostracized and isolated throughout that period right up to the 1980 election, when they were fully embraced. That is why in March of 1980, even former President Gerald Ford was still quoted as saying, “.....the Man is unelectable,” seven months before Reagan was elected President. It is worth noting that Congressman Paul was one of only 4 Congressman who endorsed Reagan in 1976.

However, the Goldwater/Reaganites were never treated as badly as the Paulites have been this season. The NeoCon/establishment faction within the Party has diligently worked to eliminate all true vestiges of the real Reagan Revolution from the party, as exampled by their behavior this election season. They have but one thought: Power and control at any cost. Yet, the record shows they keep losing running against historic principles of the Party.

They are attempting to make stillborn the Paul movement. Why? Because we are strong supporters of the original values of the Party? My friends, we are being weakened further by the poor leadership of that NeoCon faction and its adherents. Check the record.

The results since 2004 have been abysmal. In Colorado, while having a 200,000-vote advantage of registered Republicans over Democrats, we have lost the State Senate and the House, the Governor’s mansion, the Treasurer’s seat and two Congressional seats.

Nationally, we already have lost the US House and Senate and it is nearly a foregone conclusion we will lose 25-30 more House seats and 6-9 Senate seats in November.

In early tests, we have already lost seats in Illinois, Louisiana and Mississippi. Seats that Republicans have held for decades. The damage is mounting. We are CONTINUING to lose Governor’s seats left and right. The Democrats are out-raising us in funding $3 and $4 to one (in Congress $6 to $1) as noted recently by Republican Congressional leaders. The leadership should be forced to explain where it is that we have a winning strategy in constantly compromising our historic principles rather than firmly re-establishing them each generation? That is what the Founders taught.

From McKinley to Taft to Goldwater to Reagan, this Party used to promote and celebrate the core Republican message and historical principles of the Party. That seems to be all but banished from the party, except to pay it lip service. The result of that banishment are, and will be, clearly evident in the election results this November and after. If establishment Republicans persist in ostracizing and obstructing every attempt for the classic Republican message to have a voice in the Party, than who are Republicans, really? I did not spend the last 33 years as a conservative to start voting for liberals. Please join me today in supporting and promoting what should be the real message of the Republican Party in 2008 and beyond. Send the message to the Party leadership that we no longer support any further erosion of this party’s principles! Don’t allow them to keep rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Regardless of whether or not you would ultimately have voted for Congressman Paul, every Republican should have respected the message. That was the Republican way for the first 140 years of this party. At this point, even if he wins, John McCain will likely be another Millard Fillmore presiding over the complete demise of the Whig Party from 1850-54.


I thought about Ron Paul but
there were quite a few things I didn't agree with him on plus I didn't think he had a snowball's chance of winning.
For Ron Paul Fans.
He thinks McCain is the better man. He stated he doesn't even know what the O is all about.

This is why the powers that be behind the scenes made sure Ron Paul didn't get proper media coverage and couldn't get his message out there........too many agendas in governments around the world.  We do need to keep our butts out of this......no matter what happens, the middle east will always and has always been fighting.  Surely the U.S. doesn't think WE will be able to suddenly stop all that.  All we are doing is making matters worse by taking sides at this point.  If Israel feels the need to counter attack or invade the gaza strip, regardless, we need to stay out of it.  Let them do what they need to do and we need to stay out. 


Ron Paul is soooo right!!!

Ron Paul has been so right all along.  We just keep throwing more and more money, printing more money, just wasted, all of it!   Government is not supposed to be in the business of economic planning for this country....that's not a free society!   Government has NEVER done ANYTHING worthwhile with our money other than blow it............they have no business in the private sector. 


All the CEOs they sit up there and grill....what have they found out?  Nothing....and they never will.  Government can't get anything right. 

I want the platform that Ron Paul ..
originally ran on back in the 1980's - term limits. Let congress do 4, 5, or 6 years and then go home and get a job like the rest of us. The founding fathers never intended pols to remain at the trough on the Potomac for decades, collecting and peddling influence and serving special interests. Besides, with 300+ million of us I'm certain we could find a new crop every few years who are capable and willing to serve their country for a term.
Paul says in Corinthians
that we will all stand before Christ:

2 Corinthians 5:10, "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad."

So Christians will be judged based on the works they do AFTER salvation, and rewarded/chastised according to such. That's part of the motivation of Christians doing good works.

But you are right, as far as getting into heaven, Christians will not face condemnation if they have sincerely confessed Jesus as their Lord and Savior.

For Ron Paul fans. sm
The article is on Huff Post, but is positive. There have been a few good articles there lately on Dr. Paul since his transparency bill (HR 1207) now has more than half the House as cosponsors.

The World's Most Popular Congressman

I wasn't much of a Ron Paul fan and (sm)

didn't vote for him, but if he had been treated more fairly, my opinions may have changed.  As of now, they're beginning to change.

There are a lot of things the federal government have no business sticking their noses into.  Last time I heard, Ron Paul had nailed most of them down.

Since I'm beginning to become disillusioned with both the Republican and Democratic parties, I just may vote for Paul (if he's still running) during the next election.

Paul Krugman article
Questions of Character
    By Paul Krugman
    The New York Times

    Friday 14 October 2005

    George W. Bush, I once wrote, values loyalty above expertise and may have a preference for advisers whose personal fortunes are almost entirely bound up with his own. And he likes to surround himself with obsequious courtiers.

    Lots of people are saying things like that these days. But those quotes are from a column published on Nov. 19, 2000.

    I don't believe that I'm any better than the average person at judging other people's character. I got it right because I said those things in the context of a discussion of Mr. Bush's choice of economic advisers, a subject in which I do have some expertise.

    But many people in the news media do claim, at least implicitly, to be experts at discerning character - and their judgments play a large, sometimes decisive role in our political life. The 2000 election would have ended in a chad-proof victory for Al Gore if many reporters hadn't taken a dislike to Mr. Gore, while portraying Mr. Bush as an honest, likable guy. The 2004 election was largely decided by the image of Mr. Bush as a strong, effective leader.

    So it's important to ask why those judgments are often so wrong.

    Right now, with the Bush administration in meltdown on multiple issues, we're hearing a lot about President Bush's personal failings. But what happened to the commanding figure of yore, the heroic leader in the war on terror? The answer, of course, is that the commanding figure never existed: Mr. Bush is the same man he always was. All the character flaws that are now fodder for late-night humor were fully visible, for those willing to see them, during the 2000 campaign.

    And President Bush the great leader is far from the only fictional character, bearing no resemblance to the real man, created by media images.

    Read the speeches Howard Dean gave before the Iraq war, and compare them with Colin Powell's pro-war presentation to the U.N. Knowing what we know now, it's clear that one man was judicious and realistic, while the other was spinning crazy conspiracy theories. But somehow their labels got switched in the way they were presented to the public by the news media.

    Why does this happen? A large part of the answer is that the news business places great weight on up close and personal interviews with important people, largely because they're hard to get but also because they play well with the public. But such interviews are rarely revealing. The fact is that most people - myself included - are pretty bad at using personal impressions to judge character. Psychologists find, for example, that most people do little better than chance in distinguishing liars from truth-tellers.

    More broadly, the big problem with political reporting based on character portraits is that there are no rules, no way for a reporter to be proved wrong. If a reporter tells you about the steely resolve of a politician who turns out to be ineffectual and unwilling to make hard choices, you've been misled, but not in a way that requires a formal correction.

    And that makes it all too easy for coverage to be shaped by what reporters feel they can safely say, rather than what they actually think or know. Now that Mr. Bush's approval ratings are in the 30's, we're hearing about his coldness and bad temper, about how aides are afraid to tell him bad news. Does anyone think that journalists have only just discovered these personal characteristics?

    Let's be frank: the Bush administration has made brilliant use of journalistic careerism. Those who wrote puff pieces about Mr. Bush and those around him have been rewarded with career-boosting access. Those who raised questions about his character found themselves under personal attack from the administration's proxies. (Yes, I'm speaking in part from experience.) Only now, with Mr. Bush in desperate trouble, has the structure of rewards shifted.

    So what's the answer? Journalists who are better at judging character? Unfortunately, that's not a practical plan. After all, who judges their judgment?

    What we really need is political journalism based less on perceptions of personalities and more on actual facts. Schadenfreude aside, we should not be happy that stories about Mr. Bush's boldness have given way to stories analyzing his facial tics. Think, instead, about how different the world would be today if, during the 2000 campaign, reporting had focused on the candidates' fiscal policies instead of their wardrobes.

Just an FYI - Ron Paul is a true conservative.sm
We are not like the people on the conservative board.
Ron Paul radio interview
For those of you in the listening area, Ron Paul is being interviewed on NPR. I am in New England and it is on now. But if you miss it, you can log onto NPR on the web and play it back at your leisure. :o)
Ron Paul exposed, literally!
This is priceless! Ron Paul being backed by pimp Denis Hof and traveling with Tucker Carlson. OMG! Could this get any better? Per Huffington:

Love Ron Paul...he's great!

Though I am a staunch Democrat, Ron Paul

had my interest.  We need to get back to the constitution.  That's another thing about Obama.  He taught the constitution and said he would reinstate the writ of habeus corpus.  Hillary has not said a word about reinstating writ of habeus corpus.  Telling, I think.  But before knowing what Obama was about, really listening to what he was saying, I was in favor of Ron Paul, he's a respectable guy.

Go Ron Paul....now running on an independent
Ron Paul's comments on the bailout. sm
Dr. No is still working for us in Congress.

Dear Friends:

The financial meltdown the economists of the Austrian School predicted has arrived.

We are in this crisis because of an excess of artificially created credit at the hands of the Federal Reserve System. The solution being proposed? More artificial credit by the Federal Reserve. No liquidation of bad debt and malinvestment is to be allowed. By doing more of the same, we will only continue and intensify the distortions in our economy - all the capital misallocation, all the malinvestment - and prevent the market's attempt to re-establish rational pricing of houses and other assets.

Last night the president addressed the nation about the financial crisis. There is no point in going through his remarks line by line, since I'd only be repeating what I've been saying over and over - not just for the past several days, but for years and even decades.

Still, at least a few observations are necessary.

The president assures us that his administration "is working with Congress to address the root cause behind much of the instability in our markets." Care to take a guess at whether the Federal Reserve and its money creation spree were even mentioned?

We are told that "low interest rates" led to excessive borrowing, but we are not told how these low interest rates came about. They were a deliberate policy of the Federal Reserve. As always, artificially low interest rates distort the market. Entrepreneurs engage in malinvestments - investments that do not make sense in light of current resource availability, that occur in more temporally remote stages of the capital structure than the pattern of consumer demand can support, and that would not have been made at all if the interest rate had been permitted to tell the truth instead of being toyed with by the Fed.

Not a word about any of that, of course, because Americans might then discover how the great wise men in Washington caused this great debacle. Better to keep scapegoating the mortgage industry or "wildcat capitalism" (as if we actually have a pure free market!).

Speaking about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the president said: "Because these companies were chartered by Congress, many believed they were guaranteed by the federal government. This allowed them to borrow enormous sums of money, fuel the market for questionable investments, and put our financial system at risk."

Doesn't that prove the foolishness of chartering Fannie and Freddie in the first place? Doesn't that suggest that maybe, just maybe, government may have contributed to this mess? And of course, by bailing out Fannie and Freddie, hasn't the federal government shown that the "many" who "believed they were guaranteed by the federal government" were in fact correct?

Then come the scare tactics. If we don't give dictatorial powers to the Treasury Secretary "the stock market would drop even more, which would reduce the value of your retirement account. The value of your home could plummet." Left unsaid, naturally, is that with the bailout and all the money and credit that must be produced out of thin air to fund it, the value of your retirement account will drop anyway, because the value of the dollar will suffer a precipitous decline. As for home prices, they are obviously much too high, and supply and demand cannot equilibrate if government insists on propping them up.

It's the same destructive strategy that government tried during the Great Depression: prop up prices at all costs. The Depression went on for over a decade. On the other hand, when liquidation was allowed to occur in the equally devastating downturn of 1921, the economy recovered within less than a year.

The president also tells us that Senators McCain and Obama will join him at the White House today in order to figure out how to get the bipartisan bailout passed. The two senators would do their country much more good if they stayed on the campaign trail debating who the bigger celebrity is, or whatever it is that occupies their attention these days.

F.A. Hayek won the Nobel Prize for showing how central banks' manipulation of interest rates creates the boom-bust cycle with which we are sadly familiar. In 1932, in the depths of the Great Depression, he described the foolish policies being pursued in his day - and which are being proposed, just as destructively, in our own:

Instead of furthering the inevitable liquidation of the maladjustments brought about by the boom during the last three years, all conceivable means have been used to prevent that readjustment from taking place; and one of these means, which has been repeatedly tried though without success, from the earliest to the most recent stages of depression, has been this deliberate policy of credit expansion.

To combat the depression by a forced credit expansion is to attempt to cure the evil by the very means which brought it about; because we are suffering from a misdirection of production, we want to create further misdirection - a procedure that can only lead to a much more severe crisis as soon as the credit expansion comes to an end... It is probably to this experiment, together with the attempts to prevent liquidation once the crisis had come, that we owe the exceptional severity and duration of the depression.

The only thing we learn from history, I am afraid, is that we do not learn from history.

The very people who have spent the past several years assuring us that the economy is fundamentally sound, and who themselves foolishly cheered the extension of all these novel kinds of mortgages, are the ones who now claim to be the experts who will restore prosperity! Just how spectacularly wrong, how utterly without a clue, does someone have to be before his expert status is called into question?

Oh, and did you notice that the bailout is now being called a "rescue plan"? I guess "bailout" wasn't sitting too well with the American people.

The very people who with somber faces tell us of their deep concern for the spread of democracy around the world are the ones most insistent on forcing a bill through Congress that the American people overwhelmingly oppose. The very fact that some of you seem to think you're supposed to have a voice in all this actually seems to annoy them.

I continue to urge you to contact your representatives and give them a piece of your mind. I myself am doing everything I can to promote the correct point of view on the crisis. Be sure also to educate yourselves on these subjects - the Campaign for Liberty blog is an excellent place to start. Read the posts, ask questions in the comment section, and learn.

H.G. Wells once said that civilization was in a race between education and catastrophe. Let us learn the truth and spread it as far and wide as our circumstances allow. For the truth is the greatest weapon we have.

In liberty,

Ron Paul
Glad to hear it.........we need Ron Paul
I like Dennis Kucinich - and Ron Paul
but they are too honest to get elected into office
Taking from Peter to pay Paul.....

Well, h@ll........I suppose with this glorious reform package of Obama's, I should just go sit under a bridge, kiss my hard working years goodbye.  Obama will kill this society.  My husband has also worked his butt off since he was 12 years old and he definitely does not owe anyone his money.  They can get off their butts and shovel dirt, dig ditches, work in a powder factory, haul hay, move furniture, dig sewages, whatever.  WORK FOR A CHANGE!  Live within their means.   My husband did it.  They wanna go to college, do like us, work your butt off and pay for your college education.  Quit whining!!! 

Even those families at the low end of the income bracket will be paying dearly in taxes, more than now, and they actually think they will be getting a break.  Tax credits are NOT tax cuts. 

Socialists are whining, sniveling, moaning, groaning....

You wanna see free money given to people who DO NOT pay taxes?  If you don't contribute, don't expect anything else.  

Ron Paul's common sense
never fails to restore my faith in the democratic process. His ideas are rooted in thoughtful, down-to-earth analysis and free of partisan affiliation and agendas. It makes me proud when an elected official has the guts to stand up and speak against US involvement in the Middle East, call it exactly what it is and in the next breath expouse the wisdom of centrism when speaking on the economy and the bail outs. I hope he's around for many years to come.
Ron Paul on peace and non-intervention. sm
Here is a clip of an interview of Ron Paul yesterday on the issue of neutrality in Gaza.

Ron Paul has the right idea about fending

And guess what, it's actually in our constitution!!! 

Congress to consider using letters of marque and reprisal, a power written into the Constitution that allows the United States to hire private citizens to keep international waters safe.

Used heavily during the Revolution and the War of 1812, letters of marque serve as official warrants from the government, allowing privateers to seize or destroy enemies, their loot and their vessels in exchange for bounty money.

The letters also require would-be thrill seekers to post a bond promising to abide by international rules of war.

DUH...... and to think our constitution already has check and balances in place!!!  Sadly now, we have an administration that couldn't give a rat's butt about our constitution........... they're smashing it in the ground!!!  We might hurt some little 'ol peoles' feelings and you know Obama is all about bowing and kissing backside!!1


I agree completely with Ron Paul
Ron Paul scares the living daylights out of me. He is
Ron Paul supporter? Not wanting to fight, just asking.
I should have mentioned I was a loyal Ron Paul supporter.
If that makes any difference.
St. Paul Police Protest the Press

Be careful of your constitutional rights - they are rapidly disappearing.


Ron Paul.....I'll let you figure out the rest
Ron Paul was the only one telling you the truth about the economy. sm
He was mocked, ignored, and called a kook. I guess we will see who was wearing tin foil when this whole system crumbles.

Wall Street Rescue Worst Legislation Ever.

If Ron Paul endorses him I'll write him in - nm
Conservative Paul Weyrich Dead at 66
Conservative Paul Weyrich, founder and first president of The Heritage Foundation, chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation died today at the age of 66. He also helped create the Moral Majority in the 70s. He also helped create a group called the Patriots to Help Restore Checks and Balances, which condemned the Bush administration's warrantless-surveillance program. He also helped create the Arlington Group. He also publicly speculated that God wanted Ken Blackwell to be the Sec'y of State of Ohio to help Bush win the 2004 election.

Weyrich was responsible for much of the structure and organization of the modern conservative movement and was an unbending believer in conservative principles and never traded his beliefs for access to the neoconservatives in power for the last 8 years. He was a conservative's conservative.
Ron Paul on the stimulus bill today sm
"The American people will wake up out of necessity." I sure wish there were more like him looking out for us.

Ron Paul on EARMARKS.....please don't miss his point
With Dr. Paul, everything is connected to the law of the land, the Constitution. sm
He does not personally condone drug use, but in the Constitution there is no authority that prohibits people from making personal choices.

Here is something more recent from him on that topic.