No offense, but that’s a bunch of bull.

1. Narcotics are only a problem becuase they are demonized.

2. More people have died from peanut allergies than terrorist attacks. I do not view IslamoFacists as a horrible threat. All they have done is swat us lightly. It’s the fear, and what the fear has made us do to ourselves, our neighbors, and our country that is the problem.

3. Homeland security… it is a department we do not need.

But, again, these are my opinions. I could be wrong.

He is the only one who properly addresses the biggest threat to this country – illegal immigration – illegal aliens – open borders.
No, this doesnt mean poeple just from Mexico. I mean narcotics, terrorist, money and weapons going south.
If you thinks this is not the number 1 issue facing this country, ask someone from Homeland Security – ICE, FBI, Border Patrol, SSA or local cops who work on the border and on the interior of the US where the real threat is.
The gov’t will not provide the real truth in order to prevent panic.
There are more middle eastern males arriving with valid visa’s, who commit marriage fraud with US citizen women then you can ever imagine. The loopholes are still in place, the deciding officials hands are tied, because we have the most liberal immigration system in the world, more than any other country, but they don’t tell you that.

I’ve been thinking about your comment:

I don’t get this whole “angry” thing regarding Ron Paul.

If you think this country is being taken in the wrong direction, shouldn’t you be a bit vindictive about it?

No, you should not be vindictive. People realize the fact that politicians are human, and politicians become corrupt. But that does not stop them from hoping that a leader is above that.

As a general rule, we want perfection. We want a leader who is poised, and confident. One who respects rights, and is rational even when everyone else is irrational. We want a leader who is passionate, but not vindictive.

So, anger can be a real issue for a canidate if not presented in the right light. Ron Paul needs to be seen as passionate, not as angry. Right now, it sometimes looks the opposite.

Looks like we will have a liberal in charge next year regardless of which party wins the election.

I like Ron Paul. I do not agree with *everything* but I do like him.

However, it is a long haul, and he has a lot to prove to a lot of people…

If you think this country is being taken in the wrong direction, shouldn’t you be a bit vindictive about it?

Ron Paul is trying to make a case to the American people that we need to re-evaluate the role of government in our lives. None of these other candidates are doing that in any convincing way.

Like Brownback trying to blame political corruption on broken families!?!

If you are the type of conservative who actually wants the government to get smaller, I promise you Ron Paul is the only candidate who MIGHT be able to make it happen.

This country is getting more collectivist by the second, and I’m really hoping we’re finally ready to turn it around.

Ron Paul in 2008!

-Chad

Chris Matthews, wannabe major belongs in the minors (F)

Mitt Romney, the clear winner (A-)
Duncan Hunter, articulated his views well (B+)
Rudy Giuliani, a surprising disappointment (B)
John McCain, trying to reassert himself (C+)
Ron Paul, good arguments but anorexic (C)
Jim Gilmore, same ol’ same ol’ (C)
Mike Huckabee, showed some promise (B-)
Tommy Thompson, looks like town drunk (D)
Sam Brownback, held his own (C)
Tom Tancredo, I expected far better (D-)

At the end of the day, this so-called debate will probably motivate Fred and Newt to get in the game.

Nick

LOSERS – Giuliani is a liberal

McCain did very poorly
Tancredo is out of his league

The other guys are nice guys but out of the bunch Ron has the right ideas.