-

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- ---- ---- --- --- --- --- --

Your rating: None Average: 4 (1 vote)

Ron Paul is the only candidate that can save this country, and has solid ideas on how to do so. The media ignores him I think, simply because Clinton & Obama rule the media, and people think in black & white, Republican-Democrat colors - and dismiss the Libertarian Party as some goofy hippie gimmick of a party. Not quite sure what the intention was to write "Libertarian" the way you chose to do - it makes it appear that by voting Libertarian (ie: Ron Paul), the country will be sold out to Islam or something. Maybe I took it wrong, but that was my reaction.

Let us suppose that he is elected.

How would he accomplish the notions he has, about less government and so on.

Haven't we heard this for decades and yet the layers of government increases.

http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog

The turn willl come when we entrust the conduct of our affairs to men who understand that their first duty as public officials is to divest themselves of the power they have been given. It will come when Americans, in hundreds of communities throughout the nation, decide to put the man in office who is pledged to enforce the Constitution and restore the Republic. Who will proclaim in a campaign speech: "I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce it's size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed in their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is 'needed' before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglectiong my constituents' 'interests,' I shall reply that I was informed their main interest is liberty and in that cause I am doing the very best I can."

-Barry Goldwater

Matt Holdridge
The Toledo Tattler

What is Paul going to do, when and if he is elected to turn back the tides of increased government.

Reagan said almost the same things as Goldwater and yet Reagan added to the gov just as Bush II has done.

Pledged to enforce the constitution meaning what?

No abortion for woman as the constitution is silent on the issue?

War time period as mandated and written in the constitution to be adhered too? How?

http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog

Matt, you're not using those Liberty Dollars are you?

Can but a lot of philosophical and quotes to put in place or discussion as to how a candidate for office is going to undo two hundred plus years of change and growth in the country and bring us back to a time, if it ever existed, where people had the liberty and freedom to do as they please and could take control of situations and act as a unified nation with a smaller government.

As in how does Paul plan on undoing Homeland Security which is dealing with threats to liberty and freedom externally and internally or how Paul would do away with the Transportation agencies and so on and how does one person have the ability to seek such change when he has to work together with members of both houses of congress to get legislation encated, how does he do it?

Rhetoric is wonderful but it is just talk.

http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog

Valid questions all, but do you need those answers from all candidates, or just from R Paul?

-

-

I can only hope and pray (figure of speech, I don’t believe in a god…) that Ron Paul wins the nomination. He is the one man that Dennis Kucinich could easily win against.

I the mean time, I just hope he keeps sucking cash from more viable Republican candidates.

Ron Paul is more likely to win the Dem nomination than Kucinich. Kucinich believes in the core principles of the Dem Party, but the Dem controllers do NOT. Hence, he has ZERO chance of being nominated. Only a corporate warfreak can win the Dem nomination ... just like a corporate warfreak can only win the REPUB nomination.

The answers to the questions from the other candidates are clear in the non-response from them.

The answer from them appears to be no, because they know or seem to know that with freedom and liberty comes responsibility. The responsibility to be fair and to be free does not mean that we can do what we want and go about our business.

The idea that government interferes in let us say, the mortgage debacle, is one example.

Without regulations and rules would the situation been worse?

How can we seek to emulate life and standing of 1776 when this is 2007?

Was there any more freedom then, than now? If so, what was it?

http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog

If he does as he claims that he will, follow the wording of the constitution, how will he resolve issues that are not defined in the constitution?

"After four years of veto’s and numerous government shut downs later...."

Ummmm the congress can override the veto unless of Paul becomes supreme ruler and does as he pleases.

The founders gave us a voice in matters for a reason they knew that the country would grow and change and not stagnate or go backwards.

http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog

Isn't the candidate enjoying the net result of contributions? As in campaign donations and some of the donors may want something in return?

http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog

Ron Paul makes it sound like anything not in the constitution would be handled by State Governments, ie, abortion, same-sex marriage, and the like. Can any RP supporters confirm this for me?

-

-

1. Republican controllers realize the Repub vote will be split.
2. A split Republican vote will shoo-in Hillary no matter what stupid thing she says.
3. The Repub controllers will play the "Wasted Vote" card (ref. Dem use of said card against Nader).
4. The Repub vote base will get so scared of President Hillary that Ron Paul will be shitcanned.
5. Romney or Giuliani will win the nomination and 99% of the Repub vote.
6. Ron Paul will be written in on the ballots of several states. Threat Level: ZERO.
7. Regardless of who wins, a corporate, globalist warfreak will sit in the White House. Mission Accomplished! "Let's Roll!" ... roll over the middle class, that is.

If we look at:

Section 1 - The Legislature

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

and

"Section 8 - Powers of Congress

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Does the candidate insist that the all others not named here are null and void even the power to create laws is instilled in the houses of Congress?

The same is true for the executive. The executive does not have powers granted through the office of the executive that have been given and or granted through the hundreds of years?

How would we handle the maintenance and repair of interstate highways, which were not in place when the document was drafted?

And how would the candidate square this one: "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;"

Set a time limit on wars?

Heck the civil war lasted longer than two years, so that means Lincoln was at fault and the congress also.

"He notes: the Governor of NY in 1930 pointed out that the Constitution does not empower the Congress to deal with "a great number of…vital problems of government, such as the conduct of public utilities, of banks, of insurance, of business, of agriculture, of education, of social welfare, and a dozen other important features…Washington must not be encouraged to interfere" in these areas. Unfortunatly, that train has left the station."

And here it is 2007 and we have another banking scandal on our hands and the proposal is to have the feds back off and let the states handle it?

How?

http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Does the candidate insist that the all others not named here are null and void even the power to create laws is instilled in the houses of Congress?

Actually, Ron Paul's position, if I understand it correctly, would be that the power to create laws as stated in the second portion of your quote ONLY grants Congress the power to create laws relevant to carrying out the enumerated powers. That Congress has created other laws not relevant to the enumerated powers does not mean that they had the authority to do so - only that they did. Therein lies the fallacy with this argument.

However, the question of what to do now that Congress has exceeded its enumerated powers still remains. I'd suggest that the first thing to do is to stop enacting even more laws that Congress has no authority to enact. If we could start there, we'd at least be able to begin the discussion of what to do with all the other laws they've enacted in the past 50-100 years or so. (This is why I support The Enumerated Powers Act, H.R. 2458, which requires all bills introduced in the U.S. Congress include a statement setting forth the specific constitutional authority under which the law is being enacted. This measure will force a continual re-examination of the role of the national government, and will fundamentally alter the ever-expanding reach of the federal government.)

How would we handle the maintenance and repair of interstate highways, which were not in place when the document was drafted?

Good question - and here's an even better one: why can't the states do this? The states, cities and counties maintain all kinds of roads, so why do we need the federal government to do this for us? We have no problem driving on different city roads knowing that some are better than others, so why can't the states take over? Just think - all those road taxes that are currently paid to the federal government would stay here and they'd be more in terms of actual dollars without the federal government taking its cut of the funds. Just because the feds have done it doesn't mean that they're the right ones to continue.

And how would the candidate square this one: "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;"

Set a time limit on wars?

Heck the civil war lasted longer than two years, so that means Lincoln was at fault and the congress also.

Not having researched the issue, I have no idea if Lincoln was incorrect in how he handled this, but your speculation or assumption that wars could only last two years is incorrect. The Constitution only says that 'no appropriation of money' shall be longer than two years. What this actually means is that Congress would have to do another appropriation if the term of two years was exceeded. In fact, Congress does this on many spending items - perhaps because of the original limitation on the term of appropriation cited here? Wars could, obviously, last longer than two years, but Congress would have the duty to appropriate funding for no more than two years at a time.

"He notes: the Governor of NY in 1930 pointed out that the Constitution does not empower the Congress to deal with "a great number of…vital problems of government, such as the conduct of public utilities, of banks, of insurance, of business, of agriculture, of education, of social welfare, and a dozen other important features…Washington must not be encouraged to interfere" in these areas. Unfortunatly, that train has left the station."

And here it is 2007 and we have another banking scandal on our hands and the proposal is to have the feds back off and let the states handle it?

How?

Your statement assumes that government must do something about this in the first place - my question back to you would be WHY? The scandal is that people made bad decisions with their choice of mortgages and are now facing the consequences. I'm not saying that all banks/companies are innocent in their handling of the situation, but why does this cry out for any government interference or involvement? To 'protect' people from the consequences of a bad decision? And does the federal government really need to be involved because we have 250,000 potential foreclosures out of 50 million mortgages?

And please don't take this as insensitive because losing a home is never a fun or easy thing - but what's the worse that could happen? A relatively small number of mortgages will be forclosed upon. The people affected will find other housing - perhaps smaller and more affordable - likely an apartment. They'll learn a hard, but very valuable lesson and, hopefully, won't make the same mistakes again.

And the companies that extended credit to risky individuals will take a loss and, hopefully, will learn a similarly valuable, but hard, lesson. In fact, there are news stories already about banks, etc... tightening their credit offerings, so it's already begun.

In the end, NC, just because the government has done something in the past doesn't mean it must continue. There are other alternatives that could and should be explored. And the old saying still applies: What's the first thing you should do when you find yourself in hole? Stop digging.

See, people can discuss....

"ONLY grants Congress the power to create laws relevant to carrying out the enumerated powers. That Congress has created other laws not relevant to the enumerated powers does not mean that they had the authority to do so - only that they did. Therein lies the fallacy with this argument."

Fallacy? Two hundred plus years of fallacies?

Perhaps the founders set the system up to allow us to decide what is fallacy by using the court system.

What is the definition of fallacy in this case, please. It sounds like an emotional statement more than some thing factual.

"U.S. Congress include a statement setting forth the specific constitutional authority under which the law is being enacted. This measure will force a continual re-examination of the role of the national government, and will fundamentally alter the ever-expanding reach of the federal government."

Maybe the bill could pass or maybe it would not.

If we look at this way, congress passes a law. There is a challenge to it. The courts take it up and apply the constitution, literal and interpreted and rule that it is constitional, what then?

"The scandal is that people made bad decisions with their choice of mortgages and are now facing the consequences. I'm not saying that all banks/companies are innocent in their handling of the situation, but why does this cry out for any government interference or involvement?"

Well, for starters you say the people made bad choices and then state the banks and lenders did too.

The regulation or lack there of regulation about the mortgages is what hurt us all now, yes? Citigroup has a new stack holder because they screwed up and it is costing all in the end.

Why should the government get involved in the banking debacle now, to save us from ourselves and the system of capitalism that seeks to make as much profit it can and if some people go bust, to bad for them which is not the American way, is it?

"And the companies that extended credit to risky individuals will take a loss and, hopefully, will learn a similarly valuable, but hard, lesson. In fact, there are news stories already about banks, etc... tightening their credit offerings, so it's already begun."

Well, ya, when they hosed themselves and us as the ripple effect is going to get the world economic markets and us. Little foresight would have been nice or is it better to just let people burn themse;ves and end up on the streets or seek aid from the govvie in the form of welfare and all the evils that brings along?

"There are other alternatives that could and should be explored. "

Well, there ya go. That is what I am seeking. What alternatives? More talk about Goldwater and Reagan or real alternatives...which are...

Here's another saying, if at first you do not succeed, give up there is no sense making a fool out of yourself.

The quotes add nothing to the substance of the discussion.

What is an alternative, that is what I am trying to understand and dear god, please no more quotes.

So, how does a candidate of an established and entrenched party plan to change the party line and dissassemble the aparatus and start anew?

http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog

I am curious as to why we would beleive that Congress has a duty implied or otherwise to continue the funding for a war, with regards to the two your appropriation?

When we look at the language of the chapter we see no direction that it has to be done and no direction that says it does not have to be done, so it is left up to interpretation as a great many of the chapters and clauses are, which makes me wonder how does one strictly follow the constitution when it is silent on so many present day situations.

http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog

Neighborhood...I'm going to play 20 questions with you this time. What do you think we should do, tear up the Constitution and have no gaurd rails at all, regardless of whether their followed now or not? Should we abandone any hope that the gov will act lawfully and within the boundaries that it is contractually obligated to stay within? Does eqaullity UNDER THE LAW mean anything to you or is it simply equality of outcome no matter what the cost or loss of liberty? Are you an angly cynical old man? Do you have any political, philosophical, moral, ethical or religious belief that guides you or do you simply act on emotion or impulse? If you have said belief system did you arrive at it from study, reasoned thought, and who has been a major infuence on this belief? Are ever satisfied or are only happy when you complian? What form of gov do you see would be a nice fit for today?

Matt Holdridge
The Toledo Tattler

Mr. Holdridge, tear up the constitution? I asked how is the candidate going to to do what he claims that he can and will and you respond with quoations and emotional comments, such as Are you an angly cynical old man?

Angry about what?

It is discussion you young one who has a great many quotes and little substance, touche!

You want to make it personal as when questions meant to foster discussion are placed on the table you react, not me.

What am I complaining about? I am asking how does this candidate do what he claims that he says he will. You do not know, then say that, that's a novel idea?

"Does eqaullity UNDER THE LAW mean anything to you or is it simply equality of outcome no matter what the cost or loss of liberty?"

Of course it does in the land that held that woman could not vote and people were held as slaves, so what?

Cost of liberty, again with the vague references to something. What is Paul going to do, see not a complaint but a question.

"Do you have any political, philosophical, moral, ethical or religious belief that guides you or do you simply act on emotion or impulse?"

Yes, I do have beliefs that guide me and cause me to ask questions and you my friend are acting on emotions.

"What do you think we should do, tear up the Constitution and have no gaurd rails at all, regardless of whether their followed now or not?"

You need to get some fresh air like ride down the street with one ear out the window and air out your head.

Tear up the constitution? The Candidate states he will follow the constitution as they all do. He wants to follow it strictly, as in if it ain't written it ain't happening, okay so, then on the flip side there is following what is written, or is just possible that the candidate truly understands that as the times change so does the application, and dare I say it, interpretation of the rules applied to the current situation change.

Your comment, Neighborhood...I'm going to play 20 questions with you this time, tells me a lot about your emotions, you do not like to engage in questions because I think you do not have much to back up what you say, aside from quotations from past people, little in the way of experience in the world and a good dose of this sounds good to my emotions and I gotta have some more.

Paul says a lot of things that ring in people's ears and offers no solutions to the problems he sees.

He says he will follow the Constitution faithfully, okay so, how does he intend or pretend to stop wars at the years stated, place a stop watch and move the troops home while an enemy is invading?

No, my friend it is not emotions that drive me, it is the decades of candidates saying the same thing as Paul and yet the same ol same ol continues.

"What form of gov do you see would be a nice fit for today?"

One that has multiple parties, like the UK where there are not just two. A government truly weaned off the market of paid influence and returning to listening to the people more and business less. Gonna happen, probably not until the people rise up and say enough is enough.

So, Mr. Holdbridge is the discussion personal as you want to make it or is it just questions between people.

So, you'll notice I did not use the phrase, shit for brains yet, I can though if needed.

http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog

-

-

Is anything sacred to you?

Matt Holdridge
The Toledo Tattler

Sure, the right to express a viewpoint, no matter how loud the other side can get when a person just asks a question.

Or dodges and weaves to avoid engaging in conversation.

You should consider running for office as you write a lot and say little in the way of discussion, unless of course you are channeling Barry Goldwater.

http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog

Lemme see if I get this.

You post blurbs about a candidate you like and promote, which is something you beleive in.

A person asks questions about the candidate will do this or that and you recoil and claim that people are angry?

WTF, mate?

A person is pursuaded with facts and reason and not emotional responses.

http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog

if we wins the Rep. nod, I would have a hard time not voting for him. but he wont, I agree with GZ on this one. And he said he will not continue if he does not win the primary. I think that is what is keeping independents and progressives from really caring about him. The Rep. party will never let him in.

neighborhood - I love to read your comments (and maggies), because you have a talent of being able to cut to the bone what you're saying, without being led by emotion, religion, or tempers flying. I think you're one of the most intelligent posters here (purty down near the most). So I ask you, who do you think is the best candidate for president? I can't envision Hillary - she gets riled up & sounds like a shrill ex-wife (I don't want to hear her voice for 4 years). Obama leaves me cold - can't put my finger on it, just does.

I don't think any presidential candidate ever says HOW they plan to accomplish what they promise - they just make promises. And few ever deliver. I think that's why I have trouble believing any of them anymore - they all say the same, safe things, and avoid speaking out about what they really think about hot topics. Ron Paul just feels like the most trustworthy of the lot to me.

None of the candidates are the best to me.

As you pointed out they make promises and we know about promises.

The president is one person and we live in a system with three components in the government.

The president can set a policy on most matters, which we have seen can have grave consequences many years or decades down the road and the president can influence policy at home, but there are the two congressional chambers and there is the voters and the other special interests.

So when the promises are made, which are an emotional technique to get votes and support, and when the person is in office the person is not a man or woman show and not the head of state that decides all there is to be and done.

The best is what people feel the person can do and shall do, within the confines of the system.

Candidate Paul sounds great as he tugs at the heart strings of the populace but I cannot conceive how he will do what he claims, when the houses of congress have to go along with the change in direction, unless of course he is a one man government.

http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog

Although he says that he is not in the race.

He does put questions to people and does not let them get away with long winded responses that say little.

Like the N.Y. Governor letting illeagl aliens get driver licenses, he jumped right and said what needed to be said and the plan changed.

Dobbs is an interesting person and is not afraid to say something to people.

http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.