I’ve said from the beginning that you can’t count Paul out completely, in the end he has almost no chance but he has as much of a chance as the others on the lower end of the ladder. Paul’s popularity simply shows the disdain towards …

To any moderator: Referenced images show up in the preview, but not on the post.

Who I hire or rent to is none of your fucking business, whether or not he or she joins the Borg.

Recently, the word “contrarian” has become a popular derogatory label used by the herd to describe anybody with an opinion that diverges from the mainstream. It’s incredibly sad that the mighty US of A has reached such a point that exercising the right to state a differing opinion is frowned upon. The MSM has no concept of journalistic ethics and standards. We live in a country that is dominated by the celebrity and entertainment and appeals to the lowest common denominator of intellect.

However, therein lies the strength of Ron Paul’s supporters. They’re intelligent and passionate about their candidate whereas the mindless herd that follows the herd media has no passion to drive them to support those prepackaged candidates.

Ted said: I consider myself to be a conservative democrat although I’ve recently switched to unenrolled. Dr. Paul is the closest anyone has come to a perfect presidential candidate for me. He and I agree on issues 90% of the time. I’ve had the opportunity to vote 5 times for president and each time I felt like I was choosing the lesser of two evils. Not so with Dr. Paul.
Comment by Ted — October 4, 2007 @ 10:59 am

Abortion is not a litmus test for libertarians. The libertarian position on abortion depends on where you believe life begins. If a libertarian believes life begins at birth, they’re generally pro-choice. If they believes it begins at conception, they’re generally pro-life. Neither position on the issue invalidates their libertarian credentials.

Paul has stated that he is anti-immigration only because of the existence of a welfare state. Otherwise he’d be for open borders. Frankly, I think that his policy is simply using one bad policy to justify another, but I can see his point and it’s in line with libertarian values.

Absent the welfare and warfare authoritarian state that we still refer to as the United States of America, border security would be moot as it has always been. They come for our welfare state [public schools and health care] and never assimilate contributing significantly to the Balkinization of America…

Ron Paul recognizes the practical side of it, that “We’ve taught generation upon generation to be totally dependent on government” and that “you can’t just get rid of every government program”. His plan would be a gradual process, “taking care of those who are dependent, until they can be weaned off”.

Also, regarding Social Security, he thinks we should at least try to meet our obligations–while of course, not trying to continue it in perpetuity. One thing he would make sure of is that funds for social security would never be used for anything else.

Actually if you listen to him, he is all for open borders. He’s sides more with Milton Friedman on the subject, in that illegal immigration is incompatible with a welfare state. Dismantle the wealth transfers and I’m sure RP will change his stance.

Thus, by including earmarks, he represents his constituents in making sure that they get their share–if the bill passes. But he himself still votes against the bill. I don’t see that this represents any compromise in principle.

And as you say, “Ron Paul has been a much more effective politician than he’s been given credit for up until now.”