Enron, World Com? What do these have to do with anything. Idk why you are talking about banks and Enron in the same sentence, the two examples are not the same or even similar. Enron committed fraud while the banks just accumulated massive bad loan portfolios. Businesses fail all the time with or without government meddling (Paul has never said that the free market will protect businesses from failing idk why you think he has). “Lack of accountability in the bank sector” Accountable to whom? Do you even know what that means or did you hear it on MSNBC? Banks have always only cared about making money and that is never ever going to change. Banks fail all the time and people lose money all the time. If you could step out of the tiny frame of your life you would see that this is a trait of history. It’s the way the world works and no amount of regulation is gonna take the greed out of the system, people want to speculate and make money. As for regulation what you fail to understand is that the regulators all want to work in the sectors they regulate. They often even collaborate with or take advice from those sectors which makes regulation a sad joke, (I’m sure even you know that the SEC brought Madoff on in an advisory position!) Besides even if you magically found perfectly brilliant and moral people to regulate, the system still would not work because politicians need money to get elected. Hence the main reason the government bailed out the major banks with TARP is because the TARP banks give major contributions to practically everyone’s campaign. So your logic is totally flawed because whatever you think restricting or regulating the banks and corporations is pointless if they own the politicians that make the laws and create the agencies to do the regulating. If you do some research (you know what this means right?) you will find that non investment banks have traditionally been barred from many investment related activities because such things were deemed too risky. Why was this ban lifted? Why was the reserve requirement for banks changed from 30 percent to 10 percent? BECAUSE THE BANKS CONTROL THE AGENCIES THAT TRY TO REGULATE THEM! If you can’t look at the events unfolding and see this then I just feel bad for you dude.

Lol if you think Paul ignores the constitution that is just hilarious, have you even read the Constitution? If you have you must not have ever even heard him speak.

Also your definition of clinical insanity needs a little work.

174,000 does not include cost of living adjustments or internal adjustments.

It’s fairly obvious you have no idea what you’re talking about, and I don’t even agree with Ron Paul [but everything you noted is taken out of context and/or incorrect].

Republican or Democrat, the majority are corporatists with different names. Ron Paul is one of the few that is not in it for glory and riches.

To say that Obama is much different from GWB is wrong to tell the truth. Just look at the facts: We participated in Libya under Obama; troops have gotten pulled only very recently from Iraq; the millionaire tax break is still in affect; troops are STILL in Afghanistan. (We should have learned from the Soviets)

Obama has big corporate buddies just like Bush does. Except they exist in different businesses. Obama = Insurance and Banks. GWB = Oil and Banks

Hahahhahahahhahah!
That’s one OPINION. Of course, it’s not one backed by facts, or history. We used to HAVE that situation. It didn’t work. That’s why we have the EPA. BECAUSE ‘property rights’ DIDN’T WORK.

“The fundamental principle of property right according to libertarianism is this: do what you want on your property, as long as it doesn’t affect other people’s property.”
There’s only ONE problem with that. In order for it to work, everyone has to believe it and follow it. If one corporaton, say ‘Halliburton’, doesn’t, then it all falls down. They make massive profits through pollution, which eventually someone will have to take to court, and prove, at their own cost, that their property was directly damaged. Incidental doesn’t count. I smog the air, you can’t go outside, your home is edvalued by I’ve not damaged your PROPERTY. The value has decreased due to the enviroment. And if you want to sue me, you’d better have just won the lottery, because it’l take millions and about a decade to get it through court.

The principle doesn’t work. It’s a nice principle in THEORY, but one that fails BADLY due to the little thing on this planet called ‘human being’.

“As for the rest of the policies you’re against, Ron Paul believes it’s not up to the federal govt. to decide those. Instead, the states do.”

Let me emphasize the key word there. BELIEVES. Do you know what a government based on beliefs is called? A THEOCRACY. They always turn out good. You can’t challenge beliefs, because they’re based on what one man, or a select group of men think, they’re not based on objective facts, that can be challenged and verified and modified.

The RIAA and MPAA *BELIEVE* SOPA is good. The facts say otherwise, but you’re not going to shift their beliefs, just like you’re not going to shift RP’s BELIEF that it’s not the Federal Governments job to do certain things, despite it being stated as such in the Constitution.

Bit of a bugger really, isn’t it?

I don’t support Ron Paul, because I don’t support his reading of the constitution, because HIS version requires you to miss out a few words in the powers enumerated to Congress. “Provide for the common welfare”.

When you get down to it, Paul’s plan is a mixture of anti-science rants, ideas that have already been tried and failed (why did we create the EPA, could it be because the free market DOESN’T regulate pollution?)

We’ve had a financial collapse because of a lack of accountability in the banking sector. What’s Paul’s plan? Why, to do AWAY with what restrictions we had, such as the acts put in place after Worldcom/Enron (because, you know, the market prevented that from happening, as he planned it…. yeah…)

Paul’s plan is basically to sell everything out to whoeever is the highest bidder, except the bits that are covered by his personal brand of ‘christianity’, where he wants to IGNORE the constitution, and IGNORE SCIENCE, and say an egg is a chicken, and abortion is wrong, because that’s the ‘christian position’.

If you can’t see the internal inconsistancies in his policies, then more fool you.

If you want to repeat the actions of the past, and hope to get a DIFFERENT result, then you’re clinically insane, since that is one definition.

Vote Ron Paul, for an America the 18th Century would be proud of! Just a shame this is the 21st Century.

I cannot see why people like you hate him when his party not only came 3rd AGAIN in the election, but THEY ALSO LOST SEATS in the process.

You act like the ball was in his court when due to the economic downturn, public tensions were running high. He did what he had to do for his party to SURVIVE. Clearly, you can’t see that.