Still not sure how "secession" is not tied directly to slaves, slave trade and state sanctioned racism/discrimination.

The only time secession was actually declared was in the Confederate States of America (ie: the confederate slave trading racist motherfuckers). in 1869, the SCOTUS declared that secession is basically null. Also, I'm not sure how one can be constantly screaming about following the US Constitution, without understanding that it replaced the Articles of Confederation. Meaning, this state sovereignty schtick is hollow rhetoric. You can't believe firmly in one, and the other at the same time. Well you can, but you're either doing it to hide your real racist views, or you're an idiot.

The more and more you push this secession and property owners rights to discriminate against races, the more and more you scream "I'M A RACIST!".

"I'd love to see it."

I'd love to see it to, just for the comedy factor of Paul shoving his anti-war stance down the throats of the idiots that make up the Sarah Palin GOP.

But it will never happen. The powers that be who run the GOP and the news media won't allow it. If Paul was smart (which he's not) he'd just run as a lib instead of a fake Republican (RINO!). But he won't. So, your pipe dream of Paul vs Obama will never, ever, ever happen. Instead we'll have the laugh fest that is Romney vs Obama, or Palin vs Obama.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

^Agreed. It would be nice if there was a real alternative on the GOP side- but they all give me the cobbly-wobbles. Obama will win a second term- and he will do all the things that he wanted to do in his first term then.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

It sounds to me like Paul is at least foreshadowing secession and civil war - if not fomenting it. He comes across like a gentle old grandpa - but he's pushing some scary stuff.

@dag, ending war, stopping the imperial hegemony, and protecting personal liberties is scary stuff? I must not belong in this world then.

Also, I think the fundamental issues we have with elections is that we measure every candidate by the party they're associated with. I like Kucinich and Gravel, though I disagree with their policies, and I like them aside from them being associated with the Democratic Party. It's important to distinguish the man (or woman) from the party, I say.

I think his comment at the end about "what might have to be done when the dollar crashes" isn't really a longing for states' rights as much as it speaks to his conviction that the financial/auto sector bailouts were the wrong thing to do.

Having spoken that defense, I'll flip and say that I completely agree with volumptuous on the assertion that he should run as a Libertarian. If he was willing to make a political martyr of himself in the name of his ideals, I think it would serve the country well for him to succeed from the GoP. Anything that could be done to shake up the two party system can't hurt. Heaven forbid the U.S. evolve into a three party system; it might temporarily confuse the lobbyists into not knowing what strings to pull for a couple months.

On an entirely personal note, I don't think I'd vote for him even on that ticket because I don't think the Libertarian platform leads to any sort of social equity. (even when pursued with good intentions) I only add that point to provide some context to my above rambling and it is not meant as a discussion point in and of itself.

Dude, regardless of how you feel about Ron Paul, in two years from today he will be 76 years old, and 77 years old on Election Day, November of 2012. Ronald Reagan was 77 in his last year of his 8 yrs in office. If Ron Paul won, he would be 81 at the end of just his first term. Ronald Reagan was 83 when he was officially diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease.

Is it wise to elect someone who is that old? I don't think so. It's one of the most stressful jobs on earth. That can't be easy on an old man. And remember, age was one of the many reasons why McCain lost. One could argue that Ron Paul would select a good running mate to carry on his legacy if he died while in office. However, wouldn't it just be better to have the running mate run for president himself?

And his views on vaccination alone should disqualify him for office. I don't want someone like him in charge if a major pandemic broke out.

(And in case anyone is wondering, the editors of Effect Measure are well-respected public health scientists and health practitioners. They don't allow quacks and charlatans to have blogs on ScienceBlogs. You have to fill out an application, and then they'll let you know if you've been accepted or rejected. They've been around for 4.5 years, and they only have 80+ blogs total. It ain't no Blogger.com)

What makes all of you think that the next president will be any different than the last?

When it comes to the shit that matters, none of them have the balls to stand up.

None of them have the balls to take a good look at the Executive Branch and say, "Maybe we have too much power."

Being that we are all still alive from the swine flu epidemic, I would say that it was most likely completely overblown. If you have watched other videos from him on the matter, you will of learned that 20 years ago there was a similar fear endued rather than data endued pandemic. In that case, the cure killed more people than the illness. Furthermore, if you watched any of his stuff, you would learn that he isn't against vaccines, he is just against making them federally controlled. Saying everyone gets a flu shot doesn't mean it is actually possible as the MASSIVE shortages on H1N1 showed. It didn't matter that the government was mandating it for certain people as there simply wasn't enough. Once again, he isn't against vaccination, merely legal mandate of them.

But ya, age is pretty interesting. If you look at him though, he hardly seems at the end of his rope yet. Some people get those lucky genes, he seems to be one of those few. He was actually an Olympic level runner when he was much younger.

Sorry, I posted to the wrong place.....

First of all, just because there haven't been a great number of deaths from H1N1 yet doesn't automatically mean were out of the woods. There is a good evolutionary potential for it to mutate to something worse.

Secondly, who says that H1N1 is the only potentially dangerous virus out there? Even if the H1N1 virus never mutates into something terrible, it doesn't mean that other viruses won't. So we need someone who has a better understanding of them at the helm, or at least someone who doesn't think his knowledge of virology he acquired 50 years ago is still completely true today.

Finally, if there is a deadly pandemic like the 1918 Spanish flu, you better believe there should be mandatory vaccinations. If hospitals everywhere are overflowing with flu patients, then public health is overwhelmingly more important than the rights of one person to say no to vaccinations. One person's liberty doesn't trump my right to live. Typhoid Mary would be the poster child for Ron Paul's approach to disease control.

Should we wait until a deadly pandemic breaks out before we let market forces do their supply/demand dance? Or can we encourage sensible approaches to serious public health issues? Time after time, when vaccination rates drop, disease morbidity and mortality go up. We can't let a political/economic theory dictate public health policy. >> ^GeeSussFreeK:

Being that we are all still alive from the swine flu epidemic, I would say that it was most likely completely overblown. If you have watched other videos from him on the matter, you will of learned that 20 years ago there was a similar fear endued rather than data endued pandemic. In that case, the cure killed more people than the illness. Furthermore, if you watched any of his stuff, you would learn that he isn't against vaccines, he is just against making them federally controlled. Saying everyone gets a flu shot doesn't mean it is actually possible as the MASSIVE shortages on H1N1 showed. It didn't matter that the government was mandating it for certain people as there simply wasn't enough. Once again, he isn't against vaccination, merely legal mandate of them.
But ya, age is pretty interesting. If you look at him though, he hardly seems at the end of his rope yet. Some people get those lucky genes, he seems to be one of those few. He was actually an Olympic level runner when he was much younger.

The evolutionary potential is also there for it to fade into obscurity like other swine and bird flu's of years gone by. So the fact remains that it is less deadly than flu's that already exist, significantly so, and is less virility with each horizontal transmission. The potential is there, but the same potential exists with that of the cold and the media isn't in an uproar about that; nor are we here.

Guess what, Obama and other representatives have less training than a medical doctor of any age. Are you saying that less qualified people are more qualified? And medical issues are hardly issues I see as executive anyway. If anything those fall squarely in the realm of our own responsibly or that of the courts of congress. It is hardly a military or policing or diplomatic issue. Once again a problem of the overgrown executive branch.

You don't have to make things mandatory for people to want to do them. If there was a real epidemic, you would hardly have to force doctors to take it. And if it was a real epidemic and there was a shortage and a doctor wanted to forgo his treatment so that little Johnny orphan can have his, are we going to make him a criminal because that is what it boils down to. If you don't inject this serum, then you are a criminal. I can't see that as a precedent I want legally. However, I do agree with your sickness liability. If you cause someone else to get sick by negligence, then there is some culpability there as much as hitting someone with a car or something. The laws on this need to be more clear than they are because right now there is nothing. If by action of lack of action you make someone ill, right now there is nothing you can do about it legally speaking. If for example a coworker comes in sick with just normal flu and causes you to miss several days worth of work because of that, I think there is some liability there.

Like it or not though, market forces are the exact forces that you need for something like this. If there is some validity to the H1N1 threat, it won't be long before people are clambering for it. There isn't the same clambering for the cure for the cold, and as such no great effort to eradicate it...it just isn't want people want. Not that I would be against such private endeavors. Personally, I am all for trying to eliminate sickness like we did small pox from the face of the earth...I just don't think it is your right to inject fluid into peoples bodies (if only! Giggidy giddidy goo!). While I agree with your sickness culpability, I don't agree that the solution is you get to stab them with needles; it would tend to violate the premises of liberty all together.

If a woman's child posed a threat to public safety, could the government force her to get an abortion? While an absurdity of a situation, it represents the level of violation we are stooping to here. Especially since some vaccinations can result in side effects that can include death (but not pregnancy thank god!). Ok, rant over In the end, I don't think this should be any presidents job anyway, so I wouldn't even care if someone was completely bass ackwards on the views on vaccinations (like those anti-vaccination people), ultimately, it isn't a job the president should even be tasked with, he isn't our medical commander in chief.

@kronosposeidon. I don't believe in compulsory vaccination, either. If there's a breakout, those who receive the vaccinations may live and those who choose not to may die, but if you've already been vaccinated won't that mean you're free and clear?

I don't know. It seems a bit silly. It's like you're saying, "A warmongering president is good and will receive my vote as long as he's for compulsory vaccinations, but a peaceful one is bad if he doesn't believe in compulsory vaccinations." It's really a flimsy premise.

It also makes for a very clumsy campaign slogan!

What I'm saying, blankfist, is that a man who calls himself a doctor, yet has outdated knowledge of virology, calls into question his judgment on other issues. It would be like trusting the judgment of a physicist who hasn't bothered to learn about relativity. Trusting someone who is so out of touch with a field that relates to his field of expertise is scary. If his knowledge is so out date in medicine, than what makes him an expert in other fields, like economics?

And GeeSussFreek, Obama may know little about virology, but I'm sure he'd be willing to listen to people who were actual experts, rather than go on his shaky knowledge like Ron Paul does.
The unshakable faith that some people place in market forces rivals the faith that born-again Christians place in a deity that allegedly walked on water and raised the dead. That might be helpful, if that deity could raise the dead people killed by Typhoid Mary. But by God, do NOT restrict her liberty! Market forces will save the day!

I don't know what out of date knowledge you are talking about. This is as concise a video I can find on his view. He does leave out the issue that I think we talked about just prior that by course of action of being sick you can spread the sickness to people who are also not vaccinated. I would be interested to see his opinion on that. But his knowledge hardly seems out of date being that he is at least aware and considering the causes and effects of gulf war syndrome. Moreover, he has many family members that are doctors with even more recent information that I am sure he gleans off of. I would be interested what exact out of date reckoning you are talking about, perhaps that would provide some context. I could, however, find some suspicion in the statement of shots overwhelming the immune system. But he sates that more as something he thinks should always be a consideration, not something there is empirical evidence of. I can't even comment as to the existence or non-existence of such a unbiased study, I am no a virologist.

What makes you think that he wouldn't listen to experts? Moreover, he also has more of a backbone than Obama and won't just capitulate to the first expert that spreads fear his way. That is how I see the wall street bail out, as some clever fear mongers gaining from the fear they were able to sow. People in medicine most likely aren't so sinister, but they still are people interested in funding their objectives, and will always think that the thing they are working on is the most important thing in the world. Take my uncle for example. He works as a experimental biologist on Anthrax. And as such, he always frames it as the "most important issue of our time!". While it is not a trivial problem, his proximity to it distorts the relevance. The same could be said of this recentish flu thing. It was all over the news, so we all think it is super serious, but really, it wasn't.

The market is just democracy of money. When the government steps in and takes over sections of the market it distorts the true value of it. If you want cheap medication, you don't want the government involved, period. Government does not make things cheaper or more wildly available, ask Russia. They had plenty of tanks and nuclear bombs, but they didn't have soap or woman's pantyhose. I think it is interesting that you bring up Typhoid Mary. What about drunk driver bill? Should alcohol be banned to prevent this public health concern that is drunk driving? Where does the line for public safety begin and end? If it is completely arbitrary, then I fear the future viral police state!! Perhaps they will let me have the sick blonds in this evil future...that is my one hope!

(please frame conversation as interested in discussion and not trying to antagonizing, I don't usually come off well in text! If you placed a couple of hehehe I just fated in between some lines it should give an idea to my state of mind.)

Unfortunately, liking a candidate regardless of their party affiliation doesn't sever said candidate from party politics, pecking orders, and financial support. I'm not a Ron Paul fan, but it is unfortunate for those who are that, for now, his viability as a POTUS candidate is tied to the Republican Party, and all its insular machinations.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Also, I think the fundamental issues we have with elections is that we measure every candidate by the party they're associated with. I like Kucinich and Gravel, though I disagree with their policies, and I like them aside from them being associated with the Democratic Party. It's important to distinguish the man (or woman) from the party, I say.

@kronosposeidon. I balk at your comparison that the theory of relativity is to a physicist what virology is to a obstetrician/gynecologist. That aside, your example above was pinpointing the Swine Flu "epidemic", and we know now that hasn't been a real threat at all. In fact, it has proved, so far, no more dangerous than the flu.

I understand you're a union man who hates concepts of free enterprise, and that's cool, but I don't think your arguments have any real merit. I mean, you're sexy as shit, but if you remove your sexiness then you're left with a union man with a protectionist agenda. Wiener rubs!

Ron Paul just has too many crazy views bundled with stuff we like.

There's no reason why Ron Paul can't be elected president of your mind. It is your mind after all. No delegates. No unions. Election day can be whenever you want. Live the dream!

President Palin. Yaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyy!