A politician putting principles above partisanship. We can’t have that, now can we.

Ron Paul will not support the eventual nominee because that person will make government bigger, start more preemptive wars, infringe on individual liberties, and increase executive powers, among others. The last time I checked, those are all conservative principles that Republicans use to fight for. The party has lost its way this last decade. Ron Paul is the only traditional Republican candidate who would fight for the causes Republicans use to be known for. As a lifelong Republican, I believe Ron Paul is the truest Republican candidate in the field.

R – in name only? How? He supports the platform of the GOP far better than anyone else running. Since when is nationbuilding and big government conservative, let alone republican? Sure, republicans don’t follow the platform but it doesn’t change that platform.

Ron Paul is not a partisan – true. But he has been in the party and supported it for the last 40 years. Rudy Giuliani on the other hand is in no way a republican and has always said this. While Ron Paul runs in the republican party because his views line up with the platform to a fairly high degree, Giuliani just runs in the party because there is no fascist party in the US and he finds solace in the fact that many Republican lawmakers have embraced neoconservatism and rejected the party platform that flourished under Reagan.

I don’t see why a young educated wealthy white male would vote for someone other than Ron Paul.

And for the long term view, that says something bad for the Republican party.

Well friend, this Texan will work until judgment day to reclaim the Republican Party from you foreign-war-spewing internationalists. Have you even read our platform? The Texas Republican Platform? Try it, then come back and post something resembling something other than froth… Congressman Paul has made it abundantly clear that he will support any candidate who will actually uphold his oath to defend the Constitution of the United States–a candidate who is dedicated to restoring American’s liberties, who will respect their property rights, and who understands that interventions and the expenditure of billions abroad will have a substantial liberty-limiting effect at home.

Since when does compromising you values to scum like Guliani mean you are not a good American? Dr. Paul has many, many supporters among the American people because simply enough, he and Huckabee are the only candidates who represent conservative Americans. The only reason he is not considered a major candidate by news channels is because those channels are owned by companies like G&E, and Disney that will loose there grip on the throats of Americans if he is elected. Dr. Paul is a true American, and will save our democracy if you give him the chance.

Ron Paul will “restore human liberties?” Not for women, that’s for sure.

Ron Paul is a right-wing, theologically time-warped, social conservative. Check out his website. I don’t care if he wants to end the war now. If he really believed in personal liberty, “medical privacy” and “health freedom” as he proclaims on his election site, he would not work to deny a woman the right to terminate a pregnancy. Roe v. Wade was a legal case decided on the issue of PRIVACY. He proclaims “I will negate Roe v Wade by removing the ability of Federal Courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life.” That would in effect, make abortions illegal again in most states.

“The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideals of liberty. My professional and legislative record demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life principle.” Well, fuck me and my gender.

AND, at the first republican debate, he was one of two candidates, (the other being Huckabee) to raise his hand to proclaim his belief in creationism. For chrissakes, he’s a medical doctor, educated in science and he believes Fred Flintstone walked dino the dinosaur? Guess, what? People who believe in intelligent design also believe homosexuals are sub-human, sick pervs that don’t deserve any human rights or liberties.

Ron Paul? I’d rather vote for Barney Rubble.

Dyann,
I just wanted to clarify something. When you commented that “at the first republican debate, he was one of two candidates, (the other being Huckabee) to raise his hand to proclaim his belief in creationism.”
Thats not exactly how it happened.
The moderator asked which candidates did not agree with evolution to please raise their hands. Three candidates raised their hands, Huckabee, Tancredo, and Brownback. Not Congressman Paul.

I just wanted to clear that up, it was bothering me.

I wouldn’t vote for Ron Paul but one thing you cannot deny him is that during the debates, he has never stumbled over his words nor have I seen him switch positions on anything or pander to anyone. I think with Ron Paul you get what you think you’re going to get unlike most of the other politicians running on both sides. In other words, whether you agree with him or not, he is believable.

If the country wants more and more war, and more and more debt- vote for the Repulicrats- pretty much any of them will accomplish the same thing. They will promise and pander and promise and pander some more(Hillary just the same as Rudy or Mitt) .

Once elected, they will spend and spend and support their own self interest groups and forget about the little folks .

Voe for Ron Paul and let’s make a difference.

Republican Oath.

http://www.gop.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=4324

Ron Paul: The real Republican.

I wasn’t even going to post on this thread, as I agree with Robbie.
Everyone has their reasons for supporting, or not, a candidate.
I’ve glanced at all the comments, and don’t find any of the support for Paul compelling. (Sorry Dianne, I don’t think he is believable)
I don’t know who these commenters are on this thread who have never posted here before, but speaking for myself, I do not support the KKK, the Nazis, and I don’t go to the website StormFront, either.
Besides Paul exposing how bat-shiite crazy he is, every time he goes on one of his rants, his accepting tainted money from all of the various hate groups in this country is revealing. I have many problems with his views, beginning with bringing all of our troops home from all over the world. Yeah…brilliant. We don’t have interest anywhere else, but within our borders, is that right? We have been able to project our power as a nation abroad, not just because we can, but because we need to, to protect our interest. Without our power projected throughout the world, a power vacuum would follow, and nature abhors a vacuum.
Ron Paul taking tainted money, and not returning it, tells me that he is a stealth candidate, with an agenda that he dare not speak.

Any other serious candidate for President would recognize that the donations from Nazis and white supremecists are tainted and should be returned. Apparently, Congressman Paul is quite willing to not only take the hater’s money, but also don’t mind that they race around the internet defending his positions in the most nauseating ways imagineable, thus tarring the more stable and normal Paul supporters.

Ron Paul’s Nazi Supporters.

You may be right, No2. I don’t know anything about his campaign finances and if what you say is correct, he should not accept them.

I don’t agree with his position on Iraq either and I wouldn’t vote for him. He can’t win no matter.

The other big problem with Dr. Paul is his hypocrisy on “big government” and “states issues”.

Dr. Paul says that he believes in “smaller government”, and that states issues should be left to the states.

Then why on Earth did Dr. Paul request 60+ earmarks totally more than $400m … most of which go towards propping up the Texas gulf coast and shrimping industry.

As an Indiana Libertarian wrote:

.

..[I] don’t see why a libertarian would want my money to investigate, construct, maintain or organize Texas’s eastern shore infrastructure. Nor why a man that believes in the free market would want me to subsidize the shrimp industry. Each and everyone of these earmarks is a state issue, and I think it is disingenuous for him to rail against a federal “cash cow” while he suckles from its teat.

My personal problem with earmarks isn’t really about the money. It’s about the fact that supporting local pet projects with federal funds is merely a way of keeping yourself in office. Trust me when I tell you that his list of projects all but ensures that Galveston will vote Ron Paul. Man, he hooked up Galveston.

Exactly. Ron Paul talks about small government and states issues…but at the end of the day, he has his hooves dipped just as deeply into the Federal pork bucket as anybody else.

I know you Ron-bots already have your pre-scripted spin to Dr. Paul’s earmarks — but that’s all it is: spin.

Andrew and all-

I stand corrected on my post regarding Paul’s support at the first republican debate for creationism. I was in error. I certainly do not want to post things that are untrue. There’s enough of that. Andrew is correct, therefore I do not know what Paul believes regarding intelligent design.

However, I do know his belief in “individual privacy rights” and “health freedom” is hypocritical if he works to overturn Roe v. Wade. It totally dumps his whole ideological belief system in the crapper. No one has explained how Paul’s work to end safe, legal abortions, jives with his individual privacy stance.

Is economic freedom more important to Paul supporters than the individual medical freedom of women? And believe me, this is not just a “woman’s” issue. More men should be standing up for woman’s right to choose. If couples now get “pregnant”, they also get “abortions” together too.

Sorry about my incorrect post.

Dianne, there is more.
The Odd Alliance Supporting Ron Paul.
It’s my understanding, that Paul wants not only to bring our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq home, he wants to bring them all home. He wants to abandon all of our allies and interests all over the globe. Nice. Concede the Pacific Rim to China, that’s a brilliant move. Remove our fleets and amphibious forces from regions where they can act quickly to any attacks on our embassies, citizens, or allies. I would ask what he is thinking, but I don’t think I really want to know. I would just like for him, and others like him, to stay on their meds, so they won’t be a threat to themselves or others.

I would just like to briefly comment on Ron Paul’s stated desire to withdraw U.S. troops from most of their hundreds of bases around the world.

I do not believe that by bringing troops home from, for example; Germany, South Korea, and Japan; that we are abandoning our allies. Nor by withdrawing our fleets and Marine forces from the Pacific would we cede the Pacific Rim to China. The decades long deployment of U.S. forces in these regions has served largely to deflect the responsibility for providing military power and defense away from those countries that are most affected. Germany, Japan, and South Korea all have some of the strongest economies in the world, and would be more than able to provide for their own defense. However, because they are already protected by massive forces of the United States military, they spend very little on defense.
It is my belief that if the United States were to withdraw its troops from many of these areas around the world, these countries would be forced to step up and provide for for their own defense. I find it hard to believe that in the absence of our forces, Japan and South Korea would allow China to dominate the Pacific.

I would agree, Andrew, if our friends and allies knew in advance, and planned for that contingency.
I’m just saying what Paul proposes is folly, from a candidate that is unrealistic, and unelectable.
Even if by some strange cosmic fart, he got elected, and tried to pull a stunt like that, he would fail in the attempt, unless it was a strategic plan.
Currently, I don’t think the countries you mentioned would be able to match or exceed the military power the Chinese are amassing.
I’m not sure we can or will match what they are doing, which is why I try to never buy anything made in China.
Also, from the 2007 update…Clearly the trend shows that the PLAN is rapidly closing the gap between itself and the US Navy, and particualrly when focusing on the Western Pacific, which is where the PLAN is concentrated, this is a trend worthy of watching and considering in future US Navy and other western nation’s planning and acquisition schedules.

Rob Stanley has it right – nail on the head.

I wont support ANY of the others either – in fact.. im writing him in in 2008 whether he is a candidate at that time or not.

When you choose between two evils you end up choosing evil.
Im finished with that “loser-method”.

Ron Paul is the personalization of what the Republican party should be. Even as a Democrat.. I would consider voting for him if it meant that our country would change as he envisions it. Our goverment is now one of the largest in history. In the past decade, it has grown immensely and spending has gone out of control under a Republican administration, directly contrary to their core beliefs. Clearly, something has changed, and its not 911 or the terrorists. That is smokescreen to keep us in fear and influenced, while the power that be in the government and private sector keep their coffers full with contract moneys to make us feel secure.

For those of you who don’t believe in his vision, that is understandable.. the apathy for change is a might force, often stronger that the work required for change.

Ron Paul can change our country, our citizens and how we view ourselves in the world for the better.

I’m sorry, Steve.
I’m respectful of your view, but not of Paul as a serious candidate. The man is nutz! His ideas wouldn’t strengthen our nation, but make us more vulnerable.
As for the growth of government, and the spending(with the exception of the GWOT), those are the bones I have to pick with W and the Republican Congress that was turned out in ‘06. In my, and many others view, it was the outrageous spending and growth of government that got the GOP defeated, not Iraq, or fired U.S. Attorneys, or Abu GrabAss, or any of the other frothy non-issues the donks and their lackies in the LameStream Media tried to whip up. W never claimed to be Reagan, and W was never the promoter of conservatism like RWR, either. It will take a true conservative to win back their support, but not a candidate that needs psychotropic meds.

You can have your say and prefer who you like and also not care about any of them if you will. However, Ron Paul is probably the most sensible politician out of all of these. Ask yourself this. Do you need somone serious, honest and faithful and true to the amercian cause in all times good or bad? OF COURSE YOU DO! Someone who you can look in the eye? OF COURSE YOU DO!
And does any one of these wannabees hold down a serious and meaningful answer to any one given question? The only thing we can all go on is some of our primary impressions. John McCain is just pro war, as is Giulliani and Romney. So if the british gov sponsored al qaeda in the 80´s and 90´s as is discovered by an ex mi6 officer, why wage a war against something you´re funding? After all Brit or Yank, it´s still red, white and blue ie it´s all the same in the background. So what´s it for?…..MONEY!!! So Ron Paul knows this and his supporters do too and are down for closing down all of this charade which has been going on since 9/11. Mark my words. You must like the patriot act then? taser guns and a police state scanning your eyes at airports and placing a chip in your drivers licence to track you? Hollywood? No, It´s The U.S.A REAL LIFE 2007 AND ON ONWARDS. You have been warned…..Vote Ron Paul or face the consequences for your famillies future, I kid you not.