So why do YOU like Ron Paul so much?

I truly want to know.  All bullshit, flaming, and racial slurs aside (which, I know, is impossible on 4chan), why do you (or anyone) like Ron Paul so much?  I just don't see what is so revolutionary about his campaign.  It seems he is sort of a Jeffersonian Republican... but if you know American history, you'd know that that didn't really work out so well.  His stance against the war is admirable, but not revolutionary.  A candidate like Gravel is far more appealing to me, with the National Initiative and his economic stance.

Because he promises to get rid of the Federal Reserve and usher in a new era of Steampunk Air Pirates.

http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2001/pr101101.htm

because, in the growing absence of organized religion, latent racism is the driving force behind all the pudgy, young, inconoclastic, white males of the republican party.

Paul would effectively ignore and shit upon tens of millions of our nation's poorest citizens (i.e. blacks) and this fact alone is enough to titilate all those young republicans into idiotic, libertarian orgy.

Because unlike Mike Gravel, Ron Paul is not a socialist.

Unlike Mike Gravel, Ron Paul does not aim to enslave man to his fellow man.

Unlike Mike Gravel, Ron Paul accepts the objective fact that the mere fact of one's existence automatically entitles him to the means by which to continue that existence.

Unlike Mike Gravel, Ron Paul realizes that the individual is an end in himself, and exists solely to serve his own rational self-interest, with no obligation whatsoever to provide for others.

Unlike Mike Gravel, Ron Paul is not a murderer of the human spirit.

>>4 see >>3

CNN Reports Ron Paul in 4th Place For Republican Nomination (11/20/07)

Ron Paul Wins Republican Party Straw Poll in Fresno (11/16/07)

Ron Paul: a GQ Man of the Year (11/20/07)

I don't think Jeffersonian Republicanism would be a bad thing for America nowadays...

I like Ron Paul because he's the only candidate willing to speak the truth about foreign policy.  I also like that he wants to get rid of the IRS.  But most of all, I like the fact that he has a rock solid message and doesn't alter it because of what the polls might say.  While every other politician is willing to bend over backwards and say anything to get a vote (or not lose a vote), Ron Paul truly believes the things he espouses and doesn't apologize for any of it.

http://www.pennergame.de/ref.php?refid=8828292

I like Ron Paul because I hate government intervention, socialism, large government, authoritarianism and shitty foreign policy. Unlike other (leftist) libertarians, Ron Paul is strongly against illegal immigration and Affirmative Action.

But the real reason: he will let the invisible hand do its job and keep the black man down.

>>8
See, this is the thing I HATE about Paul supporters-- they refuse to acknowledge the fact that both Gravel and Kucinich are both truth-tellers.  Hell, Gravel has been excluded from debates because he is so passionate!  And Kucinich said that he would only support the Democratic nominee if they upheld good values.

You may not support them both or either (I don't), but don't try and pass Paul off as the ONLY honest politician left in the world.  Jeez.

>>11
Gravel yes, Kucinich, no. 

Gravel is ok, a little crazy though. 

>>11
8 here.  And sure I could get behind Gravel, he's willing to tell it like it is, no doubt.  But at this point he's pretty much out of the race (mostly due in part to the media sucking cock).  I'm actually surprised Kucinich lasted longer than him, because Kucinich is a complete tool.

Its going to be something special to see how Big Corporations are going to control the elections.
I am actually interested to see how they actually "IGNORE THE US MILITARY AND THE MIDDLE CLASS VOTERS".
Sean Hannity, I have always been a big fan of yours and Fox News, but I am tired of you not give equal time to Ron Paul.
 
You know, Ron Paul, the man who actually BROKE ALL REPUBLICAN FUNDING RECORDS ON THE BACK OF  THE US MILITARY AND HARDWORKING AMERICANS.
 
All others are supported by BIG CORPORATIONS, ETC, AS YOU KNOW!!...
We all know that when Paul won the Fox News Poll, you laughed and said the Poll was silly.
 
For the People, By the People, Sean.

Well, i like Kucinich the most. but he has no real shot. and gravel has howard dean syndrome, gets alittle too worked up for his own good. which leaves Paul as the only other candidate who i feel has a CHANCE at making some change. not that it will happen, but i know alot of people are tired of whats been going on in this country and id like to take a shot at change, than elect obama(who may win with the "lesser of two evils" approach. or hillary(who would be just as bad a bush) or any of the war mongers on the right who admit nothing will change except our privacy rights and the size of guantanamo. so therefore, dr.paul is literally our only hope/.

Ron Paul is so sexy. That is why I am voting for him. He looks better than all the other candidates.

He stays true to what he believes in, doesn't sell out, and will speak his mind. What is more attractive than that?

>>1
Example of this American History supporting your claim plz.

>>3
Example of racism plz.

>>17
Well, let's see.  The Democratic-Republicans died out as a party, so, their goals weren't accomplished.  True, the Federalist party died out too, but that was because of their refusal to support the War of 1812.  Also, if you had to say who was right in terms of the country's direction between Jefferson and Hamilton, who was right?  Definitely the latter.  Because of Hamilton we have the elastic clause.  Hamilton pushed for urban and industrial growth as opposed to Jefferson's "empire of liberty" as an agrarian republic.  He called for a national bank and strong trade, whereas the Republicans wanted to isolate.

I am by no means a huge Hamilton or Federalist supporter... I am just saying that the country, after the Constitution was made, went in the opposite direction of Jeffersonian democracy.  And hell, both Madison and Jefferson ended up adopting Federalist ideals-- the Louisiana Purchase added a huge amount of land (Republicans opposed expansion), and Madison implemented widespread infrastructure.

Ultimately, the whole states-rights-tiny-government-agrarian-society thing didn't work out.  Not that I am against it.

>>15
Call me an idealist, but if you WANT them to have a chance, they DO.  It is up to you [unfortunately] to spread the word, up to YOU to make the change.  The media fights you and the country fights you but you MUST FIGHT BACK.

>>16
See the earlier post about how Paul isn't the only honest guy in the entire world.

>>18
(17 here) Well, Ron Paul isn't advocating a non-elastic interpretation of the constitution.  He's just respecting the document.  Even if he's not perfect, why do you not agree that he's better than the other candidates? (honestly interested for my own edification)

Also, I agree he's not the only honest politician, but that's a rare title.

According to CNBC, Ron Paul opposes a federal bailout and says the government and the households of America must live within their means to get "back on stable fiscal ground."

While this may sound like a good idea, this is definitely not. For good or worse, it was the lack of market transparency and federal oversight that created this crisis, and now Mr Paul wants to sit back on his laurels and allow the situation to get "back on stable fiscal ground"?

Admittedly borrowers should have known that these sub-prime adjustable rate mortgages were toxic, but lenders are not without blame. The traditional credit system that keeps this very thing from happening has been overturned by corporations that were too greedy and a government that is too economically permissive. What is more, the problem doesn't just stop with borrowers. Because so much of the debt belonging to lenders was packaged and sold as mortgage-backed securities (on the open market, to hedge funds, private equity groups and investment banks that used investor-provided commercial paper from the money market), the fate of these borrowers' mortgages will have a very real effect on the survival of a number of Wall Street's most powerful investment groups, a huge amount of money belonging to investment banks (and thus private investors), and the spending of consumers across the US, which DEFINITELY has an effect on economic performance. So in summation: Fuck Ron Paul. If we do what he wants, this shit will turn into a serious economic downfall that will bankrupt investors and families across the country.

If mass bankruptcies are the consequence of liberty, so be it.

Liberty is desirable in and of itself, for its own sake--and infinitely so.  It trumps all other concerns.

>>20
lol at no logical transition

RON PAUL IS BAD BECAUSE HE'S BAD MMKAY.

>>21
ah, but is the cause of liberty served by the disenfranchisement of the people? The liberty of a nation is both safeguarded and served best through the education of its people, and educational level is proportional to economic status (those with economic means become educated, and the educated gain economic means). Does it not follow that in order to best promote the freedom of our people we safeguard their prosperity, prevent the widening of the gap between the wealthy and the poor (which is the cause of plutocracy and aristocracy), and help them gain the tools that they require to self-govern, thus eroding the need for centralized government and eventually leading to the decline of the institution?

I speak not of mass bankruptcies as consequence of liberty, but as a factor that hinders the development of liberty and literacy in our country. Having an unforgiving and irresponsible policy such as this does not serve liberty in the least.

"Does it not follow that in order to best promote the freedom of our people we safeguard their prosperity, prevent the widening of the gap between the wealthy and the poor"

No, because that can only be done by violating the liberty of others.  What you are proposing is slavery, which is the antithesis of liberty.

It's not the job of government to promote some sort of social outcome deemed "desirable".  Government's job is to stay the hell out of the way, period--that is precisely what liberty is.

>>24
The US organized labor movement, which led to the creation of labor unions, was a violation of the liberty of business owners in the late 19th century. However, those same owners were grossly exploiting the labor of the workers without giving fair compensation and without any regard to the safety and working conditions in mines, lumber mills and factories. There were no laws in place that safeguarded these rights which we now hold to be inviolate (at least for US workers - any labor we utilize anywhere else in the world is fair game, but that's a different discussion); in fact, the US government largely sided with the companies and opposed and punished the developing unions. As such, there was very little in the way of liberty for the "have-nots", and a great deal of liberty for the "haves". That too, is slavery. Mr. Paul's proposal, to let this situation go unto the disenfranchisement of private citizens, is analogous to the decision by the government to side with business owners against the general welfare.

It follows that we need a fair and responsible government to side with the people and guarantee not only liberty, but also general prosperity and egalitarianism. It is stated in our constitution that our government is to:
1) provide for the common defense,
2) promote the general welfare, and
3) secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity
which cannot be done if we allow too much economic and political power to be held by any single strata of society. Mr. Paul's policy on the current credit crisis does not serve the cause of liberty because it unjustly punishes those that were caught in a massive manipulative scheme masterminded by those among the wealthiest citizens, that they could reap massive benefit with no regard for the rights and liberty of others. Our government was created with the mandate that it would prevent such abuse and the stratification of society that will herald our downfall into a plutocracy or even a fascist totalitarianism (which = no freedom for anyone but the ruling elite, btw).

So in other words, it is EXACTLY the duty of a government, particularly OUR government, to "promote some sort of social outcome deemed 'desirable'". It must enforce fiscal responsibility AND safeguard the welfare of those who are, quite frankly, too stupid to be aware of their own economic situation, such that it can safeguard the right of every person to freedom and prosperity.

Furthermore, liberty is a right that should belong to all people. By refusing to step in on this issue, the government will allow what used to be a flagrantly criminal act (under the rules set out by the Federal Securities Exchange Commission and other regulatory commissions after this bullshit happened during the Reagan years) to violate the liberty of all of these consumers. We are talking about a crisis that was born of complete disregard by speculators with money for the liberty of their fellow citizens; this lead to a housing bubble and threatens to lead to an economic collapse that WILL occur if measures are not taken. Now THAT would be a violation of the liberty of the people.

Anyone remember President Harding? The guy who refused to respond to the little economic slump called the great depression? He actually raised taxes and tried to balance the budget rather than deal with the threat to the prosperity of the people. Same thing Paul is doing.

The Constitution is not the be-all end-all of the proper role of government; objective moral principle is.

It is absurd to claim that enslaving man to his fellow man is somehow "ensuring liberty."  That some are too ignorant to take care of themselves is not justification to violate the liberty of those who are not.  If they make bad deals, that's their problem.  There's nothing wrong with those of us who know better taking advantage of that situation.

Liberty is liberty in EVERY SITUATION for EVERY PERSON.  You would do well to familiarize yourself with the writings of the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand.

"However, those same owners were grossly exploiting the labor of the workers without giving fair compensation and without any regard to the safety and working conditions in mines, lumber mills and factories."

"Fair compensation" is whatever employer and employee can agree to.  The agreement was there, so the compensation was fair.

There is no "right" to a safe work environment: the workplace is private property, and the owner has every right to set it up as he pleases?  Don't like it?  Don't go there.  Just because you're between a rock and a hard place is not a justification for violating the rights of another.

And striking workers who refuse to leave when so ordered by the property owners are trespassers, and the government is quite right to side with the property owners in such a case.  You have the right to strike; I have the right to fire you and refuse admission to my property for whatever reason I please--it is, after all, my property.

"Mr. Paul's policy on the current credit crisis does not serve the cause of liberty because it unjustly punishes those that were caught in a massive manipulative scheme masterminded by those among the wealthiest citizens,"

No one held a gun to their head, so no one's rights were violated.  Your plan entails holding a gun to the heads of some, which means their rights would be violated.  That is unacceptable, and utterly despicable.

"this lead to a housing bubble and threatens to lead to an economic collapse that WILL occur if measures are not taken. Now THAT would be a violation of the liberty of the people."

No, it wouldn't.  No one's holding a gun to anyone's head.

>>27
uh, human society is a SOCIETY - that implies that we have a social contract.  You would do well to familiarise yourself with the writings of the eminent 18th century philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau. 

Society has determined that certain rights and liberties are guaranteed.  like the right to a safe workplace.  what you describe is anarchy.  in the ayn randian world you describe there's nothing stopping me from you and your family to my house, killing you all and taking all your possesions - it's my property.  I'd say you were stupid enough to come to my house and think I wouldn't kill you.  oops, better luck nex- oh, yeah...

the real world is NEVER as clear cut as fucking dogmatists like you think.

>>27
oh, we agree on one thing... those who were stupid enough to buy houses they couldn't afford - fuck 'em.  also, fuck the banks who were stupid enough to loan that money.

He's not black or gay.

Yes, you have every right to kill those on your property for whatever reason.  It's your property--you're allowed to set whatever terms you like as a condition for entering.  If others don't like them, they can leave.

The notion of the "social contract" is absurd and void.  It is false.

"like the right to a safe workplace."

Except no such right objectively exists.  The set of individual rights is static, and is not subject to fiat but rather is a logical consequence of man's fundamental nature as a being that must act in its own rational self-interest to survive.  Every individual that has ever lived, is living now, and will ever live possesses the exact same static, unchanging, universal set of rights.  "Society" is not entitled to expand, modify, or reduce these.

The only difference is the extent to which the government in power RECOGNIZES those rights--and, not coincidentally, that is the extent to which that government is morally legitimate.

2 points 1 hes ballin 2 because we can

>>31
what you describe is not a society.  humans are social animals, working together to make something greater than the individual parts.  without society, and the social contract, we would still be hunter/gatherer savages.  the self interest you champion is a cancer in society.  the selfishness you describe is evil.  I want mine and fuck everyone else is the root of evil.  you're no better than stalin.

>>31
the social contract (rousseau) boiled down is this:
   
The Sovereign, having no force other than the legislative power, acts only by means of the laws; and the laws being solely the authentic acts of the general will, the Sovereign cannot act save when the people is assembled.

Every law the people has not ratified in person is null and void — is, in fact, not a law.

The legislative power belongs to the people, and can belong to it alone

this pretty close to your libertarian views, fucktard.  maybe you should understand something before you dismiss it.  that way we won't know you are constantly talking out of your ass.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXXL7Ryxzzc


Voting wont matter, LOL.

It's not close at all--it's still a collectivist notion.

It's based upon the idea that proper government is whatever the people assent to.

However, that's simply not the case.

PROPER GOVERNMENT is that which leaves each individual alone to do as he pleases so long as he honors his contracts and does not initiate, attempt to initiate, or threaten to initiate physical force or fraud against the person or property of another individual without his consent.

It doesn't matter how many people actually want this--it is the only proper government regardless.

It is individual autonomy; contrast this with the Rousseauian "social contract", which is collective autonomy.

>>36
you mistake opinion with objective fact.  your idea of a 'proper' gov't isn't a gov't at all, its the utopian version of anarchy.  I'm guessing you're too stupid to know any better.

If I don't assent to your gov't, I simply take what I want and there's really nobody to stop me because the populace is individualized - if an individual tries to stop me I kill them (and their family too, why not?) and take their stuff.  that's anarchy, not a form of gov't.

>>19
Actually, I mainly have a problem with Paul's stance on abortion and LGBT rights.  Mainly the latter.  Why someone can be opposed to same-sex adoption is beyond me... gender/sexual confusion, are you kidding me?  Why are two fat people allowed to have kids?  Why are two black people allowed to have kids?  Hell, why are a man and a woman allowed to have kids... the kid might get confused whether he's a male or a female!  Sarcasm aside, that pisses me off.  And adoption to boot!  They're HELPING society by adopting and not increasing the population.

I do not dislike Paul, nor do I think he would be a poor president.  I just think that Gravel would do better.  The National Initiative for democracy proposed by him sounds just what America needs... the ability to make laws.  His stance on the Drug War is completely logical, and his foreign policy is spot-on.

Basically, I just disagree with Paul on some issues, strongly enough to support someone else.  And I think that Paul is not AS big as he sounds... people need a bandwagon to jump on.

>>38
But he's said he'd act politically in favor of LGBT groups, and as for abortion, well that's definitely hazier, as he wants states to have a go at it themselves.

Nothing is ever a matter of opinion.  Everything is indeed a matter of objective fact, and every statement--EVERY statement--is indeed either objectively correct and objectively incorrect.

Further, your characterization of individualism is totally absurd.  Individualism is all on the MOTIVES, and not in the superficial results.  There is nothing anti-individualistic about my neighbors and I banding together for mutual defense, so long as we are all doing it for our own selfish reasons.  Don't build straw men.

>>40
I guess then you are simply wrong and don't know it.

then I get some buddies with guns and wipe you out.  or, you get even more people together to stop us killing you.  before you know it... government, collectively formed and collectively assented to.  like I said, you're wrong but don't know it.  kinda sad, really.

I am not an anarchist.  I have never renounced government altogether.  Government does have a proper role, and that role is specifically to prevent the kind of thuggery you are describing.  Again, you are building strawmen.

>>38

Is Paul in any sense of the word big truly "big"?  I can't see him with a shred of a shred of hope to win the primaries, and admittedly I don't know public support figures I highly doubt they're comparable to leaders.

>>43
Big in the sense of little big. >_>  Rather, he has a huge online following, and, I know, it doesn't necessarily transfer into real-life votes.  But his record-breaking fundraising and amount of underground supporters makes him "big" in a sense.

I'd rather have Gravel be "big."

POLITICS - FOR GAY PEOPLE ONLY

"I guess then you are simply wrong and don't know it."
Those bible camp nuts you whinge and cry over could have easily said the same thing libfag ahahahaha you've become what you hate!

Ultimate failure.

BAAAWAWWW I CAN'T PROVE YOU WRONG YOU ARE SIMPLY WRONG BAAAAAAAAWWWW WAAAAAAAAHHH

I was horny by time we went to bed. Ron Paul was sleeping minutes after that.I drifted off to sleep too. Then few hours later I felt something hard against my back. I turned around facing him kept my hand on his chest. Ron Paul woke up and asked," what do you want Anonymous?".To which I replied," nothing unusual , same as what you want me to do". Ron Paul smiled and placed his lips on mine. I was ready for this and welcomed him well. I started pushing my tongue into Ron Paul's mouth and he let it enter his.We kissed for around 20 minutes with our tongues intermingling and felling each other. By this time we were fairly horny and could feel each other"s hard ons. Ron Paul then moved his hand to my bulge and started to rub it. I also pulled Ron Paul's underwear down and gripped his 11"inch monster in may hand and started to masturbate him. Ron Paul moaned and kissed me again.he said slowly into my ear," you are a magician".I felt Ron Paul's hand moving inside my shorts and he started to play with my dick which was fully erected to full 9" by now.

>>48
FUCK YEAH!! RON PAUL 08

>>48
Oh RON!

All you Ron Paul supporters, quit spamming. Who do you think you are telling Americans that you want us to support a candidate who wants to end the War and bring back our Troops?

To tell us we want to keep more of our own money and believe that Americans want to have more personal freedom for ourselves, to live the lives "we feel" are right for us?

You Ron Paul voters are ignorant. We need the government to tell us what is best for us, even if it causes us to pay more taxes and to give more money to such groups like, illegal aliens, so they get better health care for free, than most americans get.
Ron Paul is an idiot to think we are free people.

RON PAUL FTW

The thing that I find appealing about Ron Paul is that he is so genuine. He doesn't have that slime-ball, too-heavily-invested-in-winning aura of Giuliani, or the too-much-testosterone, crazy blood-sucking femme-nazi approach of Hilary.
He practices what he preaches, and what he preaches (for the most part), I agree with. This means that he doesn't change his entire set of moral values with the wind like Giuliani does (when he first made his debut he was, allegedly, pro-choice, pro-gay rights, anti-war, and supporting free choice in all matters...just look at him now). This also means that he doesn't do one thing and say another, like Hilary (and most of the candidates, too be frank) does (i.e.: let's get out of this war!! *in five or ten years*).
He wants to strengthen the dollar, which has been inflating hopelessly for awhile now (a rate that has recently escalated to the degree that Japan, among several other countries, has abandoned the US dollar as a backing for its monetary system because it is no longer reliable). This is something we badly need.
He has many proposed solutions for our many problems, and the solutions actually make sense. They attack the root problems, rather than the symptoms.
He follows the Constitution to a tee, which is something no other candidate I have seen (with exception perhaps to Dennis Kucinich, who is also an excellent pick) has even begun to approach doing. This means that he wants the government to stay the hell out of our lives as much as possible, rather than coddling and enslaving us, as has been the trend.
He supports a once and for all end to the war in the middle east, and, furthermore, feels that we should try to avoid foreign entanglements as much as humanly possible. That means no more military bases built across the globe, which in turn means greater national security. No more empire building, which America has been engaging in for many years now. No more one-sided alliances, such as our strange pact with Israel, a large part of the reason we are in the middle east in the first place. Trade with your neighbors. Treat them with mutual respect. Stay the hell out of their affairs and expect them to stay the hell out of yours. The only time that war is appropriate is when war is brought to you (9/11 is hardly applicable in this instance since, if you read the facts, Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with the attack).
There's a hell of a lot more, but this comment is getting rather lengthy, and I had hoped to be concise.

Ron Paul genuine.  He may be genuine, but what does that have to do with being President?

We Americans don't elect honest people, especially genuine people like this man.  Anyone can go to war and keep soldiers alive.  But it is those that are more scrupuluous that will use "genuine people", for more self benefits.

Why do you want Ron Paul as a President Jackball?  If he were our president, we wouldn't be in Iraq, wouldn't have servicememebers dying, and big corporations, becoming more wealthy.

Get a grip.  AMERICANS DON'T WANT AN HONEST PRESIDENT111

oh i dont know maybe On JULY 31, 2007, Ron Paul voted NO on the Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act, which would prohibit the government from doing business with companies directly profiting off of the genocide in Sudan. I guess protecting the free market is more important than stopping genocide, huh?

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/p000583/votes/

------------------------------

"If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."

"Regardless of what the media tell us, most white Americans are not going to believe that they are at fault for what blacks have done to cities across America. The professional blacks may have cowed the elites, but good sense survives at the grass roots. Many more are going to have difficultly avoiding the belief that our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists -- our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists -- and they can be identified by the color of their skin."

"Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action.... Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the "criminal justice system," I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

"We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings, and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers."

"By far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government and that the goal of the Zionist movement is to stifle criticism."

"We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such."

"The criminals who terrorize our cities--in riots and on every non-riot day--are not exclusively young black males, but they largely are. As children, they are trained to hate whites, to believe that white oppression is responsible for all black ills, to "fight the power," and to steal and loot as much money from the white enemy as possible."


RON PAUL WROTE AND PUBLISHED ALL OF THIS RON PAUL IS AN INSANE RACIST GOODNIGHT AMERICA!!!!!!!!!

The only thing to do is wait until the primaries and watch him fail, meanwhile "quietly" pointing out his crazy ideas like ending birthright citizenship or saying the Civil Rights Act "violates the Constitution".

Insane racist/covertly un-American, I think the two fit Ron Paul pretty well. Either way, I don't expect Republicans like him any more than Democrats do. He might as well run as a 3rd party candidate, he'll take fringe votes from both parties.

>>57
iz dat you sean hanity?

>>54
"He follows the Constitution to a tee, which is something no other candidate I have seen (with exception perhaps to Dennis Kucinich, who is also an excellent pick) has even begun to approach doing."

THIS IS THE PROBLEM I HAVE WITH PAUL SUPPORTERS.  They say Paul is the most genuine guy ever, then they nonchalantly [or fail to] mention Kucinich or Gravel.  Um, so, Paul is NOT the only genuine candidate.  So don't say that he is!  Paul is honest and true, I believe that, yes!  But please, none of this "I support Paul because he's really honest" BS!  Yes, we WANT honesty, but he is not the only honest one.  K?

>>59

and other than his honesty, he's a fucking nutjob, nuttier than the democat honesties

ron paul is a liar and a racist. he's lied about his positions on things many times. suck my dick whore

Ron Paul should just come out and say, "unless you're a young, white male with upper-middle class, American-born parents, you're fucking crazy to vote for me". Until he does that, how can you call him honest?

Ron Paul is honestly bullshit, and dishonestly nativist, racist, and anti-poor.   

>> 59 I hate to sound immature here, but "duh"
Obviously he is not the only honest one, I never said that he was. If I had been making this claim I would not have mentioned Dennis Kucinich at all. That does not change the fact that he is an honest man, which very few politicians nowadays are.

>>62 You really don't make a very good case for your claim. Ron Paul is honest because he sticks to his positions and truly believes in them. What social strata or race you personally believe that he is the best candidate for has nothing to do with his honesty. Oh, and, "dishonestly nativist"? That doesn't even make sense. There is nothing dishonest about putting America first for once. On the contrary, he is rather straight forward about his position on that. Racist? How so? Anti-poor? I fail to see how cutting back on the deficit and saving the failing American economy makes him anti-poor. Anti-government-coddling, sure. That goes hand-in-hand with him not liking big brother. It has nothing to do with socio-economic discrimination.

I can't believe I just wasted that much time explaining the obvious. Enjoy your delusions, and enjoy the draft ^_^

Ron Paul is nuts. His nutball supporters are ample evidence of this. You people are worse than Scientologists.

Ron Paul is also gay. He touches small boys.