All bickering about Ron Paul aside, even he said he can't really picture himself in the White House.

He has strong opinions, and noble convictions, but it seems obvious this is a vanity effort on his part, and as humble as he may seem, only an individual with a giant ego would subject themselves to the scrutiny and endless aggrevation of a presidential campaign.

Further, if Paul were elected, he would be 77 years old when he was inaugurated. Reagan was considered pretty old when he took office. He was 70. Consider how rapidly presidents age in office. In one term, Paul would have the appearance of a mummie, at best.

Finally, if he was bold enough to attempt a third pary run for president, he would get a sufficient number of votes from the Republican candidate to assure Obama's re-election.

Other than that, I guess he's OK.

TarponMan wrote:

While we're getting rid of everything we should go back in time 250 years or so. -- Typical uber-reactionary kneejerk response, akin to Christians who think people will marry their dog if gay marriage is legalized.

That's when this isolationist policy might have worked. -- Isolationism is not the same thing as non-interventionism.

it would cripple the US economy -- Ummmm...it's not crippled now? Hello? 14 trillion dollars in debt?

One good thing is that at that point people would turn to a more socialist government. -- Yeah, that's worked out really well for Europe. Just ask the 7 countries that are going bankrupt.

borndead1 wrote:

The similarities are there...Reagan and Paul. I really don't think it's a vanity issue. His books read like Thomas Paine's. From the hip and chock full of common sense. No grey areas to ponder. This is his 3rd run for the office so that ties him with Joe Walsh. and Pat Paulson.

DrMaddVibe wrote:

So the US economy is bankrupt because of our 14 trillion debt, but we have Capitalism. Europe is going bankrupt because of socialism. China is booming and they are communist. And somehow that has to make sense in order for us to believe our bs system is best.

FuzzNJ wrote:

Paul and Reagan are similar? lmfao

FuzzNJ wrote:

We don't practice anything even remotely close to Capitalism in this country. Nor does China practice true Communism.

borndead1 wrote:

Don't you have some carrots to lick?

Yeah...similarities are there. Laugh all you want. You're only making yourself out to be the board's biggest idiot with each rectal itching post at a time!

DrMaddVibe wrote:

Is Ron Paul's wife hot..?? 😕

DrafterX wrote:

I forgot about that one,

FuzzNJ wrote:

So, no country has ever had a 'pure' economic system. Europe isn't perfect socialism either even though it's not on the extreme sides like communism and capitalism. Your distinction is one without a difference. The closest we have on the planet to pure capitalism is Somolia, no centralized government, no regulations, no taxes etc. That place should be thriving if economic systems alone determined a country's success/failure.

FuzzNJ wrote:

Good lord....why is it that everyone who doesn't believe in free markets and small government use Somalia as an example of Libertarianism at work? Do you people all read the same blogs or something?

Libertarianism is not about having "no centralized government". What we believe in is a small centralized government with limited power and a limited role in economic and social issues.

borndead1 wrote:

I think we can all agree that President Obama has already clinched his re-election.

Four more years!

HockeyDad wrote:

he is the only one. just read all his books until you understand

teedubbya wrote: