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 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”.

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 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.

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.

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