[Gozmand]

I don't think so.. The real problem would be when Congress bucked him.

Both parties would expose themselves as the corrupt, intertwined mess that they really are.

It would be a disaster for them not to be able to play both ends against the middle as they do currently.

And he'd have a choice to either follow the law, as it is (or as it comes to him and he signs it), or ignore the law and do as he pleases. I have no doubt he'd ignore the law if he thought it was the right thing to do. I don't disagree with that approach, I just don't like the precedent it sets for future assholes like Obama who don't have our best interests in mind.

[jurnalkduo]

I have no doubt he'd ignore the law if he thought it was the right thing to do. I've been reading him for probably 15 years now.. I just don't think he'd do that.

[arrasleds]

I think this comment really hits at the heart of the reason why these people were ousted:



I don't like it, it's the worst aspect of intra-party politics, but it's the way it is. Ron Paul supporters had their own plans and tricks up their sleeves, they just got out-smarted. The campaign does have the right to disqualify them under rather vague terms, and they exercised them. This might actually be an issue that is worth looking at if Ron Paul actually did well in any of the primaries. His team wanted to play politics, they got what they wanted. Crying about it looks weak.

Much as I don't like it,

you hit that nail right on the head.

[jamemeveRhype]

I've been reading him for probably 15 years now.. I just don't think he'd do that.

I've been dealing with his supporters who have advocated, relentlessly, that he do just that. But, we'll never know because he'll never have that power.

[Senasivar]

I've been dealing with his supporters who have advocated, relentlessly, that he do just that. But, we'll never know because he'll never have that power.

He's a pretty principled guy.. That's primarily what he writes about.

He's a little too libertarian for me in some areas.. I call myself a "Conservative" for a reason.. It's because I don't agree with him here.

Many of his supporters are radical libertarians.. Much more radical than he appears to be himself, based on most of his statements and what I have read..

[Info-phone]

In a world governed by pure libertarian principles.. A guy could fuck a goat on his front porch in plain view of a church, a school or a playground.

Provided, of course, that he owned both the goat and the porch he was fucking it on.

IMO, we don't need any of that.

I'm much more like Pat Buchanan than I am a radical libertarian.. However, I don't see any way that, at this juncture, we could conceivably adopt too much liberty..

I imagine the biggest, realistic, jump we could make in that direction over the course of one administration and it just doesn't frighten me.

[MedicineForUs]

He's a pretty principled guy.. That's primarily what he writes about.

He's a little too libertarian for me in some areas.. I call myself a "Conservative" for a reason.. It's because I don't agree with him here.

Many of his supporters are radical libertarians.. Much more radical than he appears to be himself, based on most of his statements and what I have read..

He's a politician. He'd either live within the limits of his power and be utterly ineffective, or he'd do what he wanted and dare congress to act. He'd be Jimmy Carter or Andrew Jackson, but he wouldn't be what he thinks he could be.

[BoarmomorurrY]

In a world governed by pure libertarian principles.. A guy could fuck a goat on his front porch in plain view of a church, a school or a playground.

Provided, of course, that he owned both the goat and the porch he was fucking it on.

IMO, we don't need any of that.

I'm much more like Pat Buchanan than I am a radical libertarian.. However, I don't see any way that, at this juncture, we could conceivably adopt too much liberty..

I imagine the biggest, realistic, jump we could make in that direction over the course of one administration and it just doesn't frighten me.

Yeah, you're probably right. We aren't going to reach anarchy in 4 years. We can argue all day long about how far is too far in limiting government, but it's nothing more than rhetorical masturbation on both our parts. We keep lurching left, not toward freedom.

[KaterinaNJq]

We keep lurching left, not toward freedom. Exactly my concern.. Even "reform" isn't what we need..

We need reversal..

[Bondjrno]

FIRE THE CONGRESS.

THE CONGRESS OUGHT TO ALLY WITH THE PEOPLE AGAINST

A RENEGADE EXECUTIVE.


THIS ONE WON'T.

[Gofthooxdix]

Exactly my concern.. Even "reform" isn't what we need..

We need reversal..

Yeah, I don't listen when people talk about "reform." They just want to mold a fucked up procedure to fit their own ends. We need to stop and go the other direction, back to freedom, not retie the shoe with the hole in the heel.

[Hamucevasiop]

One of the most obvious and simple, yet most commonly overlooked aspects of this is that.. The more power that aggregates in DC, the more these interests are willing to spend and do to keep it in place. Because it benefits them.

Looking to Washington for answers to ANYTHING outside the Constitution is only going to exacerbate this condition.. and worsen our own.

And it's amazing to me that everyone knows this on some level.. But they just don't thin of it that way until it it pointed out.

[Buhoutsoupfap]

Yeah, I don't listen when people talk about "reform." They just want to mold a fucked up procedure to fit their own ends. We need to stop and go the other direction, back to freedom, not retie the shoe with the hole in the heel.

Yeah.. I agree.

Thus my aggravation with the Republicans.. They preach this, then turn tail once the election is over.

At least the Democrats are unabashed supporters of higher taxes and central control.. They aren't shy here.

I almost respect that in them.

[ViaplyVuple]

The biggest problem we face: There's no money in the Constitution..

It's not profitable.. None of these interests would send a dime to DC if they were limited by the Constitution..

Because DC wouldn't be able to help them..

The practical result of this will be to revile the Constitution and never return to it..

[fotochicaes]

There will be no large coalition of monied interests lined up to defend the Constitution...

They will line up to attack it.

[katetomson]

Knowing this, it's REALLY HARD to scare me with the Founding document..

But, it works wonders on others.. "OMG!!!!!!! NO FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN CHARGE OF X? CHAOS!!! ANARCHY!!! DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMM!!!!!!!"

See, but I think that's the end point of the road we're on now.. And a return down the road we've traveled can't possibly hurt.

[*Playergirl*]

There will be no large coalition of monied interests lined up to defend the Constitution...

They will line up to attack it.

This is true. And this is why our fight will never be over. Ever.

[twiffatticy]

The only real solution that I see to this is a PAC of our own..

One that is solely focused on the US Constitution..

But that would be an almost insurmountable task.

There are other groups that claim to support the Constitution, but they all seem compromised in some way..

[HugoSimon]

I don't think our founding document has much high profile support..

[Terinalo]

Something that supports the Constitution, raises money and functions a bit like the AARP does with seniors..

And it should support the Constitution right or wrong.