I'm just curious to see what kind of demographic response I will get from this community. Have you heard of him, do you like/hate him or not care either way?

I think many of the things he stands for are ideals we need to return to - I agree with his stance on what the government should and shouldn't try to do, and his emphasis on servings the interests of citizens before corporations (like most politicians). He's one of the few people in politics that really thinks about issues and has a well grounded and consistent position.

He's just an off-the-charts ibertarians who's trying to use the only possible means of getting into office: joining the two-party system. He's causing a mini stink because he's actually intelligent and makes people believe that they can be Republicans and support a reasonable candidate at the same time.

Ignoring the unsubstantiated theories of libertarianism, he seems smart, but then I have to remind myself that he's running for the Republican party. Mind you, I don't have much respect for members of either party.

Ron Paul has some decent ideas, but spreads total FUD about monetary policy and wants to go back to an isolationist foreign policy that never really existed.

Paul puts forward some ideals but many of them aren't very practical or conflict with other important American priorities. Some of his supporters spam forums & blogs to no end. (This discussion is where it should be--some supporters would chime in during a discussion of mplayer or something completely unrelated if they came across it....)

This country needs a change but not of just ideals!
having one man control the governmnent causes havic. The United States must accept more political ideas (socialist democrats, etc...) A parlament must be implemented in order to reach ultimate stability.

a country such as this one cannot be controlled by one voice "voice of the people my A--", Bush is a very good example of instability.

"America's" priorities currently is to police the world because mere idiots are put into office that love spreading war.

i know that a parlament will never be implemented but atleast will someone open these political deedeedee's eyes to what is actually important!!!???

the US economy is falling short of everyone else, just look at the euro as it is worth 1.49 more than the dollar--- it is all because we are only focussing on spending money on crap and war! what about education, social security(ha ha ha- i guess these guys don't know what IDs are used for), and the economy....

in conclusion Ron Paul is by far the best shot we have of reaching stability in this country, we should focuss on more important issues instead of foreign bul*****! I support this Man!

ps: if hilary becomes pres, i'm deporting my self!

yeah well the euro is a euro. A dollar is a dollar. BUT....A US Dollar...now thats a Greenback. People love that stuff. I know I do.

It's not 'isolationism', it's 'non-interventionism'. Learn this very important distinction!

Engaging in discussions of substance on the issues would easily go too far afield. However whether you live in the USA or not, you owe it to yourself to set aside your preconceptions and do some honest study of his positions - they are nothing more than the American ideal as expressed in the US Constitution.

Ron Paul's Writings
http://ronpaullibrary.org/
http://antiwar.com/paul
http://lewrockwell.com/paul/

Ron Paul Video
http://ronpaultv.com

Ron Paul Audio
http://ronpaulaudio.com

Ron Paul Forums
http://ronpaulforums.com

Ron Paul Daily Updates
http://dailypaul.com

Presidential Campaign Statistics
http://techpresident.com

Ron Paul Campaign site
http://ronpaul2008.com

Wish the poll had more options... I think he's a good candidate, and better on many issues, but my support goes to Thompson (over foreign policy disagreements). So I do support him, but he's not getting my vote in the primary.

But democracy has it's own problems, and representative democracy with many representatives it's own as well. A hybrid system allows to take strengths from a dictatorial system (the executive branch), a representative democracy (the House of Representatives), and direct representation of the states (the Senate).
The president does not control the country; congress and the courts have power as well. Yes, the president can veto congressional acts, but they can still be passed by a 2/3 majority, and he can't veto an impeachment. And he makes judicial nominations, but the Senate must confirm them, and once they're in, they're in. So it require's the major complicity of congress to add new seats to SCOTUS and to confirm his nominees to pack the court. This has happened a couple times, but Bush didn't (and can't) pull it off.
Crap and war, eh?
And you say we should just spend it on... gov't education, social security, and "the economy" -- in other words, crap </snark>

Seriously, government can be counted on to waste money and time in any endeavour, because they don't have to worry about the competition eating their lunch. (The gov't has no competition, except, I guess, the Mafia.) So gov't education will be more expensive, and less effective, than private education. The facts bear it out, too.
Social Security is a problem -- it's a system that was intended as a safety net for people who would otherwise be homeless, so they can afford a place to stay, and food so they don't starve. I still don't agree with that, but it's a reasonable proposal, not a total nanny-state plan. Over time, however, those benefits have been promised to more and more people, including those who don't need it. Now the government has obligations to people who have paid their taxes, but can't pay it because the benefits promised were too much for the tax rate and base. So the government either goes back on its word, or finds some other way around. But throwing money from sources other than SS tax at it is only a temporary solution at best. Either the SS tax must be raised, or the SS benefits must be cut. The latter is preferable, taking the program back to it's original intent.If you mean money raised by taxation, you're saying we can help the economy by:
1. Pull money out of the economy
2. Take some of the money to pay gov't workers for handling the money
3. Put what's left back in the economy
4. ???
5. Profit!
If you're suggesting the gov't should simply print more money and dump it in the economy, that's called inflation. It hurts the economy. The best way the government can help the economy is to minimize taxation and inflation, which means minimizing spending. The distribution of tax burden matters, but not as much as might be supposed. (Say you think it's better to tax producers than consumers. The producers jack up prices to cover the tax, so the consumers pay anyhow. Or you tax the consumers, then they have less money to spend, so they buy less, just as if the prices were higher.)
Well, oddly enough, Dr. Paul seems to agree with me more than you on these domestic issues. As I understand it, he supports abolishing Federal funding for gov't education, abolishing SS (though he plans to pay the people we still have obligations to with money saved elsewhere, by cutting education and "offensive" defense spending), and a generally laissez-faire economic approach.
Well, I'm with you on the prospects of Hillary!

This is not quite correct.

Ron Paul has it right when he suggests going back to a gold standard, but for some reason he doesn't quite get the financial aspects of the Constitution.

A nation state issuing credit, via the banks, to private corporations for investment in, say, basic economic infrastructure such as power, water, health, transport systems, is not inflationary, because the requirement is that the amount of currency in circulation reflects the value of the assets of the nation in some way. It doesn't really matter if the asset backing the currency is a ton of gold, or a power plant, or a railway, so long as its physical, and not some stupid piece of paper. Any item of basic economic infrastructure adds value to the economy by enabling other economic activities to take place, and the cash invested in the infrastructure project is recycled into the economy as wages etc.

The problems arise when a nation's currency is controlled by private bankers, via an "independent central bank," rather than the people. In that case, as is happening now, we find ourselves in a completely deregulated financial system, with nutter bankers taking bigger stupider risks for short term gain. Any money that the government does control is spent on the wrong things, in ways mostly designed to just transefer the tax payers money into the hands of private individuals, notably themselves. And all the while allowing the basic infrastructure, the assets of the nation, crumble into nothing.

Ron Paul doesn't get this.

As a supporter of Dr. Paul, I'd like to ask some questions about Mplayer...