He's going to be my write in vote.

Hey, good for him.

He's like the Tampa Bay Devil Rays... gotta keep playing even though you knew before the season started you had next to no chance to make the playoffs, and by August 1st your mathematically eliminated.

Asinine tag must be for Submitter. Ron Paul's certainly not the perfect presidential candidate, but taking back the Republican Party from the neoconservatives and social regressives is a goal that any real American can get behind.

I like him, I really do.

Bah.. I heard Ron Paul was as racist as Barack Obama.

Krymore: Asinine tag must be for Submitter. Ron Paul's certainly not the perfect presidential candidate, but taking back the Republican Party from the neoconservatives and social regressives is a goal that any real American can get behind.

making the republican party an agent of forward momentum in any way whatsoever would be a good thing, i have to admit. i'm sick of having to fight against people who i wouldn't trust to run a lemonade stand.

Stop calling it a revolution, and I'd agree. It's not a revolution.

We'd all love to change the world.

EdMon, you advocating abortion?

The article forgot to mention that Paul, who drew a fanatically loyal following by championing withdrawal from Iraq and an end to income taxes, conceded in his video posting he could not win the Republican presidential nomination.

I admire his desire for the country our forefathers intended.

is he running third party yet?

cause he has my vote as a third party candidate

72? He's older than McCain.

Fire up the "He's so old" jokes!

Uh, Ron: here's the thing. You see, the Federal government has a big stake in this whole War on Terror thing. They're not going to let go of that too easily, if you know what I mean.

Nice country; it'd be a shame if something happened to it.

scratched: The article forgot to mention that Paul, who drew a fanatically loyal following by championing withdrawal from Iraq and an end to income taxes, conceded in his video posting he could not win the Republican presidential nomination.

No it didn't. In fact, it was written a second time in case we forgot as soon as we read it.

scratched: The article forgot to mention that Paul, who drew a fanatically loyal following by championing withdrawal from Iraq and an end to income taxes, conceded in his video posting he could not win the Republican presidential nomination.

or it mentioned it twice

Also, I'd like to say that Paul, who drew a fanatically loyal following by championing withdrawal from Iraq and an end to income taxes, would make an excellent third-party option.

He might have an army of nutbags for supporters but the guy himself is legit and people like him are hard to find around Washington.

He's too old

scratched: Also, I'd like to say that Paul, who drew a fanatically loyal following by championing withdrawal from Iraq and an end to income taxes, would make an excellent third-party option.

I agree. I want to see him run. It would destroy McCain chances.

scratched: Also, I'd like to say that Paul, who drew a fanatically loyal following by championing withdrawal from Iraq and an end to income taxes, would make an excellent third-party option.

The article was in the special ADD section of the paper. Also, I'd like to say that Paul, who drew a fanatically loyal following by championing withdrawal from Iraq and an end to income taxes, would make an excellent third-party option.

So being an anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-environment, pro-business tool is "revolutionary?"

So, on September 11, 2001 the United States Government failed to protect the country, and then failed again in offering a full explanation for its failure.

And then, the negligent parties at the FBI and the CIA were rewarded as the nation heralded in a new era of endless warfare against a shadowy enemy lurking everywhere.

This was followed by copious profiteering and aggressive military action.

Is that about the long and short of it?

Paul supporters need to form a new country and call it the Paleoconservative People's Democratic Republic of Paulistine.

I'm not voting for him, but good for him.

I'm also not voting for Nader, but good for him for continuing to push for change as well.

What's the problem?

1. I wish Paul and Paul's followers wouldn't put forth the revolution meme. Revolutions tend to end badly and/or they are for complete and total destruction of order and replacing it with something else. Reform is a much more accurate word, and one that will appeal to more voters. Revolution is an absolutely atrocious word to use after the 20th century.

To any "revolutionary" I ask, "What happens the day after the revolution?"

Revolutions have never lightened the burden of tyranny. They have only shifted it to another shoulder.

- George Benard Shaw.

Every revolution ends by becoming either an oppressor or a heretic.
- Albert Camus


2. Good on Paul, Gravel, Nader, and others. If they are upsetting partisans in the Democrat party and Republican party that are destroying the country, it shows they are doing something right.

No candidate who doesn't believe in evolution will ever get my vote.

RagingLeonard: No candidate who doesn't believe in evolution will ever get my vote. I will not vote for a candidate who thinks evolution is a sham.

FTFY. I hope that's what you meant. My head hurts.

DamnYankees: I agree. I want to see him run. It would destroy McCain chances.

I can guarantee you the overwhelming majority of people who would vote for Ron in the general would either not vote or would vote third party. Any effect he may have on McCain would be insignificant.

Smellvin: DamnYankees: I agree. I want to see him run. It would destroy McCain chances.

I can guarantee you the overwhelming majority of people who would vote for Ron in the general would either not vote or would vote third party. Any effect he may have on McCain would be insignificant.

Overwhelming majority is, say, 75%? That still means 23% of his vote would come from McCain (2% from Obama, probably), which is a pretty good amount of votes.

Old Ron Paul Thread =

New Ron Paul Thread =
I must politely disagree with the concept of the "revolution", what he clearly needs to focus on is reformatting the republican party to wrest control from religious fundementalists who want to start a theocracy.

/what the fark happened to fark?

The others just use language like "disagree with affirmative action" and "stronger borders" to try to trick support.

Or "states' rights," "spreading democracy" or "personal responsibility."

Paul, who drew a fanatically loyal following by championing withdrawal from Iraq and an end to income taxes, will probably not run as a third-party candidate.

cjoshuav "So being an anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-environment, pro-business tool is "revolutionary?"

Just to clarify your simplistic (but not entirely incorrect) assertions:

Paul thinks that governments should stay out of marriage.

Paul thinks that life starts at conception (I disagree, but if one is a Christian it's hard to argue otherwise)

Paul thinks that strict enforcement of property rights will take care of environmental problems (like the Austrian economists - again, don't know if I agree, but it's not "anti-environment", just an different opinion on how to protect the environment)

Paul is a free-market libertarian (are you against business?)

Cheesedog: Paul thinks that life starts at conception (I disagree, but if one is a Christian it's hard to argue otherwise)

Tons of Christians argue otherwise.

who is ron paul?

I agree with his decision to stay in the GOP and work towards advancing like-minded Republican candidates. A revamped Republican Liberty Caucus would be awesome, though judging from his campaign I'd have to say Paul would be a much better spokesman/figurehead than organizer/strategist for such an effort. Still, we all know he's not going to endorse McCain, so I wish he'd go ahead and push forwards some one decent with his blessing for the Libertarian nomination. All the current candidates aren't anything to get excited about, and I say that as a diehard libertarian (albeit small l). Kubby's the best, but all the potentially really good ones have stayed out because of Paul. He should pick one, get them to run, and should endorse that person as soon as they announce their candidacy (well before the LNC Memorial Day weekend). Supporting the LP and liberty-minded Republicans are not mutually exclusive- Paul should know that better than any man alive.

/end rant

DamnYankees: Cheesedog: Paul thinks that life starts at conception (I disagree, but if one is a Christian it's hard to argue otherwise)

Tons of Christians argue otherwise.

Bit of a moot point. Paul's main argument against Roe v. Wade has always been more Constitutional than moral. He's wrong on the morality, but right (albeit somewhat inconsistently) on the Constitutional issue.

He's also very wrong on immigration, and has a position on the Incorporation Doctrine that makes Constitutional sense, but might be a bit too negative in its policy implications for me.

There are other things I disagree with him on, but they're far outweighed by the things he's right about.

Churchill2004: Bit of a moot point. Paul's main argument against Roe v. Wade has always been more Constitutional than moral. He's wrong on the morality, but right (albeit somewhat inconsistently) on the Constitutional issue.

My post wasn't about Paul. It was about that poster's assertion that to be Christian is to be pro-life.

Damn Yankees Tons of Christians argue otherwise.

I know. Tons of Christians are also hate-mongers and war-mongers and don't give anything to the poor.

Cheesedog: Damn Yankees Tons of Christians argue otherwise.

I know. Tons of Christians are also hate-mongers and war-mongers and don't give anything to the poor.

So, are the only 'real' Christians the ones who agree with you on the issues? I'm confused what you're trying to say.

DamnYankees: My post wasn't about Paul. It was about that poster's assertion that to be Christian is to be pro-life.

I know.

As an avowed apatheist, I'd have to say the Bible can be used to make a stronger pro-life argument than a pro-choice one. But of course, if your pour over the several-thousand-page 3,000 year old perpetually-mistranslated holy book of a desert death cult, you can probably find a tid-bit to justify just about any argument.

DamnYankees: Cheesedog: Damn Yankees Tons of Christians argue otherwise.

I know. Tons of Christians are also hate-mongers and war-mongers and don't give anything to the poor.

So, are the only 'real' Christians the ones who agree with you on the issues? I'm confused what you're trying to say.

All that I am saying is that if one is a Christian it is difficult to make an argument (based on Christian tradition and on the Bible)
that abortion is not murder.

It is also difficult, if one is a Christian, to make an argument that killing is okay, or that hating is okay.

Just because Christians make all of those arguments does not mean that they have solid foundation in the basic tenets of Christianity.

Is that still confusing?

Cheesedog: Is that still confusing?

Confusing? No. But I think its wrong.

DamnYankees: Confusing? No. But I think its wrong.

Well, that's different.

guilt by association: Paul supporters need to form a new country and call it the Paleoconservative People's Democratic Republic of Paulistine.

Now THAT'S funny!

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-bibleforbids.htm

According to that, most Bible-based arguments against abortion are incorrect in one way or another.

As far as Ron is concerned, I'm sure his views are likely a composite of his interpretations of the Constitution and the legality of Roe vs. Wade, and his experiences as an obstetrician. He does remark in one of his books about being present during an abortion in the '70s, and feeling traumatic about the event.

I think his disbelief in evolution is irrelevant. He's not going to force the country to conform to his views, that would contradict everything he stands for.

/Atheist
//Voted for Paul on Super Tuesday.