The most LibT’s could hope for is enough third party to break a majority choke hold on congress.

Freedom willing.

I didn’t say that Paul couldn’t have an impact on the campaign or on the public policy debate, I just don’t think its realistic to hold out hope that he has any chance of winning the nomination.

Of course, look at the expansions of the Federal government beyond its limits in Article 1 Section 8.

Covertly “broadly defined” is what Congress does best, such as the perceived limitations placed on the RICO statute that now have miraculously expanded beyond our wildest dreams.

For more info see: Constitution of the United States of America

For even more info see: the nine senile men and one woman in robes without any check or balance on their opinions and authority over the laws of this land.

Of course I would oppose the closing down of websites that expouse “anti-American views”, because that phrase would be so broadly defined.

I grant you that weak minded people can become dangerous after reading certain material but that doesn’t make the speech itself dangerous. Can we agree that speech doesn’t hurt anyone and it in itself is not “dangerous”?

I’m not saying that as a society we need to approve and celebrate websites that advocate the killing of Americans, but shutting them down leads us down the wrong path of giving power to the subjective whims of corruptible men. Checks and balances only go so far due to the convergence of self interests. In part, fear of the convergence of self interests of the aristocratic combination lead to the First Amendment to be unambiguous in stating “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech” – that is, NO LAW. They knew that speech was not dangerous, only the suppression of it in whatever forms it may be.

Of course, we certainly aren’t following the intent of the First Amendment today with the wide array of anti-free speech laws on the books, hate crime laws promise to be another excuse for more governmental power.

Newt’s comments clearly illustrate his state of mind – that of big government, worse, he’s using fear as a vehicle to promote his agenda.

Hope this reads well, thanks for your postings.

The only problem is, Newt never suggested such a thing. He was referring to taking the threats of terrorists seriously.

http://www.newt.org/backpage.asp?art=3819

:)

Ron Paul has my vote- if not him then who? Don’t listen to the naysayers – we can make a difference.

Money is going to be his biggest problem. Absent some miracle, he simply isn’t going to be able to compete with the fundraising ability of guys like McCain and Guliani.

If Paul’s smart, he’ll do what Howard Dean did, tap into the internet and the grassroots activists and overwhelm the other guys with millions of small donations.

That said, what Congressman Paul does have the potential ability to do is influence the debate and bring attention to issues the other candidates aren’t going to talk about. That alone will make his candidacy worthwhile.

That would be success alone. Imagine Guiliani, McCain, or Romney being forced to move toward limited government.

As much as I’d like to think otherwise, Ron Paul doesn’t really have a chance of getting the GOP nomination.

Money is going to be his biggest problem. Absent some miracle, he simply isn’t going to be able to compete with the fundraising ability of guys like McCain and Guliani.

Which leads to his second problem…..

Without money, his message will get to most of the voting public primary through the media. As that Post article I linked to shows, I think the media will cover him simply for the entertainment value of finding an anti-war Republican, but it will be the same type of coverage they give to guys like Dennis Kucinich.

That said, what Congressman Paul does have the potential ability to do is influence the debate and bring attention to issues the other candidates aren’t going to talk about. That alone will make his candidacy worthwhile.