submitter: Ron Paul will not support McCain, but hasn't yet decided which third-party candidate he'll back. He'll check with the voices in his head and the magic pixie that lives under his bed, then make his decision

Actually, he was very clear as to why he won't back McCain. Ron Paul claims that he has see McCain vote time and time again for tax increases yet claims to be a fiscal conservative. He said McCain does one thing and preaches another.

In other words he lies his ass off.

Sounds like a hell of a reason not to back him and others like him, if only most American's weren't so spineless and brainwashed.

The magic pixie is never any help. He just tells Ron Paul to burn things.

I don't agree with very many of Ron Paul's positions, but he seems like an honest man. And hey, it's a free country. He can support whoever he wants.

...and if he sucks a few votes away from McCain, so much the better.

FuturePastNow: I don't agree with very many of Ron Paul's positions, but he seems like an honest man.

I still think it's lame how he proposes earmarks for his district, and then doesn't vote for them.

That way, he can still effectively funnel federal money, but then claim he doesn't support earmarks.

If Ron Paul were truly honest, he'd stump for the Republican nominee, and ask his supporters to give McCain/Palin a moneybomb.

/whistles innocently.


_{//please calibrate your sarcasm detector if you think I'm serious.}

He'll check with the magic pixie

Dennis Kucinich?

I pray Bob Barr puts him on the Libertarian ticket as his VP. Operation Chaos, indeed.

Ron Paul is God.

/batshiat

BARRGARBL

If it weren't so terminally broken thanks to Pat Buchanan, I'd say RON PAUL should run for the Reform Party.

He'll make an informed and wise decision based on his many years as a Doctor.

The Democrats should have invited him to speak as a FU to the Republicans.

eddyatwork: RON PAUL!



Steve Holt!

Ron Paul has the same system for endorsing presidential candidates that McCain has for picking a running mate?

superbeerchan: I was listening to Ron Paul's speech that he gave yesterday in Minneapolis and apparently the GOP doesn't want him anywhere near their convention. He was told that he had a single pass to the convention that he could pick up at the door, and was not allowed to even go to the convention floor.

I think that he's more than slightly nutty on some of his views, but the treatment that he got from his own party is freaking disgraceful.

Uhh.. he dislikes the current president, the current Republican candidate, and rips every action and stand the current Republican party takes. His treatment isn't disgraceful, it's prudent. The fact that he calls himself a Republican is what's out of line. He's not. He's a libertarian. And a governmental minimalist libertarian at that.

In other words, he shouldn't be anywhere near the convention unless he's protesting.

/supported RP, gettin' a kick...

He's gonna endorse Obama, I can smell it.

GoodScout: I pray Bob Barr puts him on the Libertarian ticket as his VP. Operation Chaos, indeed.

That and a strong black turnout would flip Georgia and North Carolina blue.

Khellendros:
Uhh.. he dislikes the current president, the current Republican candidate, and rips every action and stand the current Republican party takes. His treatment isn't disgraceful, it's prudent. The fact that he calls himself a Republican is what's out of line. He's not. He's a libertarian. And a governmental minimalist libertarian at that.

In other words, he shouldn't be anywhere near the convention unless he's protesting.

He's a Republican congressman who isn't allowed anywhere on the floor without a chaperone. I can't think of a better metaphor to describe the Republican views on governance and free speech.

Tabatha Static: He'll check with the magic pixie

Dennis Kucinich?

WIN!

Obama guy but Kucinich was first choice. Hope he gets a good Cabinet position where he can really make a difference.

Has he offered free OB-GYN services to Palin yet?

Tabatha Static: He'll check with the magic pixie

Dennis Kucinich?

Yes...

Thread dull without pics.

I'm impressed with how RON PAUL supporters always like to ignore the fact that on campaign stops in Texas he's followed around by a giant mock-up of the Liberty Bell suspended between the 10 Commandments.

(REVO)lution

Opiate of the Lasses: Tabatha Static: He'll check with the magic pixie

Dennis Kucinich?

WIN!

Obama guy but Kucinich was first choice. Hope he gets a good Cabinet position where he can really make a difference.

How 'bout NASA?

/yeah I know it's not Cabinet level...

FuturePastNow: I don't agree with very many of Ron Paul's positions, but he seems like an honest man.

Anyone can seem honest if you don't put any time to actually verify their claims and statements. Funny thing about Ron Paul is that when what Ron Paul says is in conflict with reality, the response is to doubt reality (e.g., the fact that Paultards insist that the Rosa Parks medal was tax payer funded because Ron Paul says it was tax payer funded, ignoring the actual text of the bill which says otherwise. Or, check out the number of fark atheists who dismiss the theory of evolution because Ron Paul doesn't accept it.). When Ron Paul says X&Y, where X&Y are mutually exclusive, Paultards will defend X&Y independently, but refuse to explain how both statements can simultaneously be true.

For instance, in 1996, Ron Paul took credit for authorship over his newsletter writings. Repeatedly. Was he being honest back then? Why or why not?

Another example is his insistence that gays and straights should be treated equally in the military, while simultaneously supporting a military policy that explicitly discriminates against gay people for no reason other than the fact that they're gay, in the very same paragraph. Paultards will praise Paul for his equal treatment statement, and they'll defend him for his pro-discrimination statement. But what they won't do is explain how both statements can be true.

Or how about this example:



Paultards will praise Ron Paul for the first statement as proof that he isn't racist, or they'll defend the second statement despite that it's only true among black republicans (Who only represent 10% of black people in general.). But they won't address the contradiction.

How about his claims that Ronald Reagan endorsed him, despite the fact that he refuses to cite the endorsement, and despite the fact that Reagan's people have been telling him to stop for over a decade? Considering how much flack Ron Paul gives towards people who attribute newsletter statements to Ron Paul after he already admitted to writing them, you would think that he would be a bit more sensitive about attributing statements to people with no source whatsoever.

HUH?

Link (pops)

Bladel: Cue the "Grrrrr! Third Parties will matter someday! Whrrgarble!" crowd.


/Love Ron Paul

Meh, we learned in the primaries that there are 5 political groups battling each other in the two major parties.

We had Obama Democrats vs Hillary Democrats on the one side. (I haven't paid attention enough to know their official labels other than Not Retarded and Retarded)

and Libertarian Republicans vs Evangelist Republicans vs Moderate Republicans on the other.

The GOP is likely to self-destruct a bit sometime soon, they are due. The Democratic party is likely to be fine, but we learned in the primary that the party is also having some problems with unity.

It would probably be better if all those groups split into seperate parties to give people an actual option to vote for someone they actually like, but it probably wouldn't work out anyways...

I don't agree with many of his ideas but I think Ron Paul is the enema washington needs to clear out the crud so having him as a congressman or senator is still good.

Lupercanalius Assbarnacle:

He's a Republican congressman who isn't allowed anywhere on the floor without a chaperone. I can't think of a better metaphor to describe the Republican views on governance and free speech.

He's Republican in name only. I find it hilarious that they haven't removed him from the party yet. While I think the Repubs have pretty well lost their collectivist minds, Ron Paul is off of the map in his own way. I don't know why Paul even claims them anymore.

Hey! I'll have you know that pixie has a PhD in Economics, you jerk!

ErikShocker:
Meh, we learned in the primaries that there are 5 political groups battling each other in the two major parties.

We had Obama Democrats vs Hillary Democrats on the one side. (I haven't paid attention enough to know their official labels other than Not Retarded and Retarded)

and Libertarian Republicans vs Evangelist Republicans vs Moderate Republicans on the other.

The GOP is likely to self-destruct a bit sometime soon, they are due. The Democratic party is likely to be fine, but we learned in the primary that the party is also having some problems with unity.

It would probably be better if all those groups split into seperate parties to give people an actual option to vote for someone they actually like, but it probably wouldn't work out anyways...

That's where I always feel a bit of envy for the (admittedly more messy) parliamentary system.

Tsk, tsk. Time and again I find myself in amazement that those who think trying to limit our federal government to the specific roles set forth in the Constitution are mocked so mercilessly on this site. From a civil libertarian perspective, Obama and McCain are the exact same.

Third parties are not in the Constitution.

Khellendros:
He's Republican in name only. I find it hilarious that they haven't removed him from the party yet. While I think the Repubs have pretty well lost their collectivist minds, Ron Paul is off of the map in his own way. I don't know why Paul even claims them anymore.

Ah yes, the old RINO attack, which is trotted out to attack any Republican who doesn't fit the evangelical neo-con machine's profile. Just out of curiosity, what does it take to be a real Republican? Which policies of Paul's are anathema, which should he be supporting?

/not a Paulistinian

ErikShocker: Meh, we learned in the primaries that there are 5 political groups battling each other in the two major parties.

We had Obama Democrats 'Young, educated liberals' vs Hillary Democrats 'Old blue-collar DINOS' on the one side. (I haven't paid attention enough to know their official labels other than Not Retarded and Retarded)

and Libertarians Republicans vs Evangelist Republicans vs Moderate Fascist Republicans on the other.

Sorry, you misspelled a couple words there. It's ok, you maybe didn't pay a lot of attention over the last 6 months.

Lionel Mandrake: ...he is not willing to say he would vote for McCain and has not made a decision between Libertarian Party candidate Bob Barr and Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin.

I'm not really a RON PAUL guy, but I always liked him. However, if he backs the Constitution Party, he goes on my shiat List.

The Constitution Party is a fine name for a party, but it's members are scary. They seem like the religious right nutjobs that are too nutty for the Republican party, and that's very nutty indeed.

I'd be seriously conflicted if Paul ended up on the Libertarian ticket though. I'm a conservative at heart, but I feel like I have to vote for Obama so McCain doesn't win...

/kind of like the last election all over again, really.

Lupercanalius Assbarnacle: Which policies of Paul's are anathema, which should he be supporting?

He doesn't think we should have a strong military. That's it. The Republicans pride themselves on their love of the military-industrial complex.

Con_Authority: He said McCain does one thing and preaches another.

Kinda like saying they're against all pork in legislature and then accepting millions in pork for your state? Lying like that? Just like that?

Lupercanalius Assbarnacle: Khellendros:
He's Republican in name only. I find it hilarious that they haven't removed him from the party yet. While I think the Repubs have pretty well lost their collectivist minds, Ron Paul is off of the map in his own way. I don't know why Paul even claims them anymore.

Ah yes, the old RINO attack, which is trotted out to attack any Republican who doesn't fit the evangelical neo-con machine's profile. Just out of curiosity, what does it take to be a real Republican? Which policies of Paul's are anathema, which should he be supporting?

/not a Paulistinian

Srsly. If someone reanimated Barry Goldwater and asked him his opinion, he'd probably find more in common with Paul than with McCain or Bush.

/Zombie Goldwater '08!