Ron Paul is the frontrunner. - General

[QUOTE=Elspin;31884488]What does airport security being able to see everyones balls have to do with anything. As for bashing homosexual couples you're going on about how Ron Paul's not afraid to stand up, he's not "Hiding under a homosexual couple's bed". Well, actually, you said "Hinding" but I'm fairly sure you meant "Hiding". Correct me if I'm wrong. Uh... that's the point. Ron Paul is saying that it's the states right to limit you from doing just that. In fact, not only that, Ron Paul believes it's the state's right to regulate you from doing just about anything in the bedroom, and then paradoxically states that he's about freedom. I'm not gonna deny that he's got a few good platforms, ending prohibition and the wars are two big things that a lot of us agree on, but the rest of his platform is batshit insane policies that are on par with 1984. For christs sake he thinks it's alright to have STATE ENFORCED RELIGION. He does not believe in [b]SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE[/b][/QUOTE] Don't argue, she/he is in Sweden. [editline]26th August 2011[/editline] Not that Sweden is bad but fuck when they don't even live in the states and talk out of their ass, don't bother.

The people who are saying that he believes states should be able to ban anal sex must not have even read the transcript. He states that sodomy laws are ridiculous, and is only saying that sodomy is not protected by the constitution. He didn't say that it should or shouldn't be, he was just stating the facts. For fuck's sake, people, read your shit before you start slamming people.

Ron Paul seems like a nice guy to be honest. Like a friend. Or the person who'd you want to make friends with.

[QUOTE=Elspin;31884488] For christs sake he thinks it's alright to have STATE ENFORCED RELIGION[/QUOTE] [quote=Ron Paul]The real tragedy is that our founders did not intend a separation of church and state, and never envisioned a rigidly secular public life for America. They simply wanted to prevent Congress from establishing a state religion, as England had.[/quote] [url]http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul120.html[/url] If you would actually read this shit you'd realize he understands that there shouldn't be a state religion, he is just against the extreme levels of secularism in government, e.g. Boy Scouts getting evicted from their own camp.

[QUOTE=semite;31947650]Your post explains nothing and only perpetuates your misinformed idiocy. Furthermore, I would like to state that you got your ass handed to you by Pepin. The founders were very clear about separation of church and state. You can find out more about it from this series of videos: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITmKiGwapk4[/media] It's obvious that you are just an angry 14 year old faggot. Please refrain from posting until you can properly inform yourself. Thank you, and goodnight.[/QUOTE] haha oh wow. you have no idea what you are talking about. and I am not going to listen to somebody who proclaims themselves to be "the wisest person on the planet."

[QUOTE=5killer;31949307]haha oh wow. you have no idea what you are talking about. and I am not going to listen to somebody who proclaims themselves to be "the wisest person on the planet."[/QUOTE] You completely ignored my entire post and skirted to some witty comment that you think would invalidate it. Shame on you. Watch the whole series because it could clear your mind of all its ignorance. I, for one, perceive your behavior as largely autistic, and therefore limiting on how you can learn from other people. Sure, the guy might be a bit smug, but you can't dismiss it simply on that basis, otherwise it would make you no better than those you oppose. [editline]27th August 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Laferio;31949100]Ron Paul seems like a nice guy to be honest. Like a friend. Or the person who'd you want to make friends with.[/QUOTE] Indeed. He's one of the very few people who actually tells it like it is. Unfortunately, most people just ignore the truth.

That asshole's voice pisses me the fuck off. The guy's a nutcase. Although he makes a valid point that the way things are going in early pollings that Ron Paul has a better chance for the 2012 election than he did in the previous one. I don't necessarily agree that Ron Paul is "OMG THE SAVIOR OF THE COUNTRY GOD BLESS AMERICUUHUUH," I only agree with one or two of his views (like ending the War on Drugs) while the rest of them are absolutely stupid (he doesn't believe in separation of church and state and has stated that he wants to promote a federal law that would ban abortion and same-sex marriage in every state).

[QUOTE=DSG;31966228]That asshole's voice pisses me the fuck off. The guy's a nutcase. Although he makes a valid point that the way things are going in early pollings that Ron Paul has a better chance for the 2012 election than he did in the previous one. I don't necessarily agree that Ron Paul is "OMG THE SAVIOR OF THE COUNTRY GOD BLESS AMERICUUHUUH," I only agree with one or two of his views (like ending the War on Drugs) while the rest of them are absolutely stupid (he doesn't believe in separation of church and state and has stated that he wants to promote a federal law that would ban abortion and same-sex marriage in every state).[/QUOTE] Have you misread and misinterpreted everything that has been said in this thread to correct your misinformation of Dr. Paul, or did you just skip past all of it?

[QUOTE=semite;31966371]Have you misread and misinterpreted everything that has been said in this thread to correct your misinformation of Dr. Paul, or did you just skip past all of it?[/QUOTE] When there's a ton of garbage coming from both sides of an argument in a thread, I don't read any of it. You don't think that he doesn't believe in separation of church and state or that he wants to ban abortion and same-sex marriage in every state? Explain where he says that he's not for either of those, with references/sources, and I'll believe you.

[QUOTE=semite;31966046]You completely ignored my entire post and skirted to some witty comment that you think would invalidate it. Shame on you. Watch the whole series because it could clear your mind of all its ignorance. I, for one, perceive your behavior as largely autistic, and therefore limiting on how you can learn from other people. Sure, the guy might be a bit smug, but you can't dismiss it simply on that basis, otherwise it would make you no better than those you oppose. [editline]27th August 2011[/editline] Indeed. He's one of the very few people who actually tells it like it is. Unfortunately, most people just ignore the truth.[/QUOTE] I can dismiss the guy being smug because he obviously has no basic understanding of fundamental political science. Nice diagnosis there too.

[QUOTE=DSG;31966471]When there's a ton of garbage coming from both sides of an argument in a thread, I don't read any of it. You don't think that he doesn't believe in separation of church and state or that he wants to ban abortion and same-sex marriage in every state? Explain where he says that he's not for either of those, with references/sources, and I'll believe you.[/QUOTE] If you didn't even bother to read the rest of this thread then I can't blame you for having a completely distorted view of him. And holy fuck, have you not realized by now that abortion and gay marriage are meant to be dealt with at the state level? Paul has explained this time after time again but I guess it goes way over your autistic brain. I'm not even gonna bother with the issue of Separation of Church and State since it has literally been discussed to death. Please, read Pepin's post as he really explains it best. If I could rate you for "Bad Reading", I'd shove so many up your ass you'd be shitting it for a week.

Do you have some problem with autistic people?

[QUOTE=5killer;31966539]Do you have some problem with autistic people?[/QUOTE] What's there to like or admire about them? There's no merit in tolerating their egregious behavior.

The fact that they are other human beings. I thought your liking Ron Paul was the extent of your intolerance, but I guess I was wrong.

[QUOTE=semite;31966521]If you didn't even bother to read the rest of this thread then I can't blame you for having a completely distorted view of him. And holy fuck, have you not realized by now that abortion and gay marriage are meant to be dealt with at the state level? Paul has explained this time after time again but I guess it goes way over your autistic brain. I'm not even gonna bother with the issue of Separation of Church and State since it has literally been discussed to death. Please, read Pepin's post as he really explains it best. If I could rate you for "Bad Reading", I'd shove so many up your ass you'd be shitting it for a week.[/QUOTE] It's not a good idea to insult someone if you want him/her to take your stance on something, just saying. You seem pretty mad. Anyway: [url]http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/abortion/[/url] I'm not going to argue or debate on this because frankly I don't give enough of a fuck and I find all U.S. politics to be a complete joke. That link straight from the man's website should say enough about his actual views, not what's relayed by some guy on an internet forum who has interpreted interpretations in his own individual way (no offense to him/her in any way, just saying).

[QUOTE=DSG;31966586]It's not a good idea to insult someone if you want him/her to take your stance on something, just saying. You seem pretty mad. Anyway: [URL]http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/abortion/[/URL] I'm not going to argue or debate on this because frankly I don't give enough of a fuck and I find all U.S. politics to be a complete joke. That link straight from the man's website should say enough about his actual views, not what's relayed by some guy on an internet forum who has interpreted interpretations in his own individual way (no offense to him/her in any way, just saying).[/QUOTE] Whether or not you agree with his stance, you can't deny that it's killing, and therefore infringing on the rights of an American. If you choose to deny that it is a person then I doubt you have any moral foundation or empathy. I don't give a fuck about converting you to my own stance, I'm simply here to point out why you are wrong. And no, I'm not mad at all. Again, I'm here to tell the truth and I'm simply being articulate about it. [QUOTE=5killer;31966576]The fact that they are other human beings. I thought your liking Ron Paul was the extent of your intolerance, but I guess I was wrong.[/QUOTE] In what way does admiring Ron Paul make me intolerant? I view people for who they are and I have yet to meet an autistic person that doesn't discomfort or disappoint me in one way or another.

[QUOTE=semite;31966608]Whether or not you agree with his stance, you can't deny that it's killing, and therefore infringing on the rights of an American. I don't give a fuck about converting you to my own stance, I'm simply here to point out why you are wrong. And no, I'm not mad at all. Again, I'm here to tell the truth and I'm simply being articulate about it.[/QUOTE] Holy shit are you seriously this ignorant? Tell that to a pregnant woman whose life is at risk because of the "life" inside her that she may not have even wanted at all. Tell that to a woman who was raped and became pregnant and never necessarily wanted to have to deal with the burden of pregnancy, let alone of raising a child. It should be a fucking choice for the woman carrying the fetus/baby/life/whatever the fuck it is and I don't really give a shit what it is. You're not the one carrying it so you don't have to fucking worry about it. Think about the concept a little more before you automatically make some dumbass remark like "WELL GEE IT'S AMERICAN LIFE SO WE GOTS TO KEEP IT WE CAN'T KILL IT THAT LITTLE UNBORN LIFE GOTS RIGHTS TOO!"

[QUOTE=DSG;31966660]Holy shit are you seriously this ignorant? Tell that to a pregnant woman whose life is at risk because of the "life" inside her that she may not have even wanted at all. Tell that to a woman who was raped and became pregnant and never necessarily wanted to have to deal with the burden of pregnancy. It should be a fucking choice for the woman carrying the fetus/baby/life/whatever the fuck it is and I don't really give a shit what it is. You're not the one carrying it so you don't have to fucking worry about it. Think about the concept a little more before you automatically make some dumbass remark like "WELL GEE IT'S AMERICAN LIFE SO WE GOTS TO KEEP IT WE CAN'T KILL IT THAT LITTLE UNBORN LIFE GOTS RIGHTS TOO!"[/QUOTE] How could you not logically separate the lives of both the fetus and the mother? Are you really that selfish or are you just plain ignorant? I'm willing to think the latter. You are still ignoring the fact that [B]the fetus is alive and is human.[/B] Are you okay with killing defenseless humans, with rights protected by our Constitution? Please, do not mistake me for some Conservative redneck stereotype. I am simply choosing the most [B]logical[/B] path.

[QUOTE=semite;31966670]How could you not logically separate the lives of both the fetus and the mother? Are you really that selfish or are you just plain ignorant? I'm willing to think the latter. You are still ignoring the fact that [B]the fetus is alive and is human.[/B] Are you okay with killing defenseless humans, with rights protected by our Constitution?[/QUOTE] [img]http://i.imgur.com/Jj6wn.gif[/img] Seriously, what is wrong with you? I'm done here.

[QUOTE=DSG;31966704][img]http://i.imgur.com/Jj6wn.gif[/img] Seriously, what is wrong with you? I'm done here.[/QUOTE] I expected a serious response but received just another (failed) attempt at being witty. Shame on you.

he wants to ban anal sex so i hate him forever what am i to do with my mountains of anal toys and anal accessories give them to orphanages????

Read the title as "Ron Paun is the Forerunner" Cool, HALO Politics :v:

[QUOTE=thunderballs;31971815]he wants to ban anal sex so i hate him forever[/QUOTE] He does? May I have a source if you have one?

[QUOTE=Pepin;31908855]I don't understand why this matters unless you can somehow prove he's going to pull a Bachmann and try to force everyone to have his beliefs. But if you understand Libertarianism which is essentially classic liberalism, it should be obvious that he would do nothing to force his beliefs on you as ideals dictate society based on voluntary action and he makes this belief pretty clear.[/QUOTE] It's more of a concern with his capacity for reasoning, if he claims he's a scientist (which he is not) and actively refutes a theory with massive evidence, he clearly has issues with logic. [QUOTE=Pepin;31908855]Perhaps you don't understand that what you have come to understand church and state to mean is not at all in the Constitution, and even it if was, it would only apply to the Federal Government. This is shown quite clearly in all court cases prior to 1890. If base constitutional law on history, you should believe the same. Look into the incorporation of the Bill of Rights. The first article you give is also quite a bad example as the government not permitting religious actives would be an infringement upon the very notion that you're saying he does not support. A lot of what he's complaining about here is more the politically incorrect notion, but also a bit about the movement to ban prayer and religious stuff in public areas. He certainly does not endorse government endorsement of religion. Also on the issue of school prayer put forward a bill that would prohibit public schools from class led prayer, but would not prohibit individuals from praying on their own. What's also good to understand is that he believes in more of local governance in that communities should have their own standards. There would still be issues, but they would instead be on a local level as opposed to on a national level, Like most people you only accept an overreach of Federal Power when you agree with it, which is quite the moral hazard as you establish that rules can be broken if they benefits my cause. Regardless of whether you cause is worthy or not, your cause unlawfully being put through gives president for other unlawful causes being put through that you may not agree with at all.[/QUOTE] Congratulations on being both misinformed AND late, I already rebutted your misinformation about seperation of church and state. The reason it was in cases before 1890 is because the law was enacted over states in [b]1925[/b]. I'll re-add my quote just for you. [QUOTE]Originally, the First Amendment applied only to laws enacted by the Congress. However, starting with Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925), the Supreme Court has held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment [b]applies the First Amendment to each state, including any local government.[/b][/QUOTE] And no - I don't support an over-reach of federal power. What I believe is that no government should be allowed control of any form over specific things - relationships, sex, religion - etc. It's not that I want the FEDERAL government to have control over it, it's that I want NO ONE to have control over it. [QUOTE=Pepin;31908855] Did you even read your own source or do you lack the ability to read past the first sentence. <ron paul quote> I think that's enough to be said.[/QUOTE] I did read the entire source actually, but apparently you lack the ability to interpret the problems with it. The idiocy of everything he said, starting with "the current policy is a decent policy" and on, is stupid. He tries to make a case that the law is good because it prevents "homosexual behaviour in the military that is disruptive", and claims that he believes it should be equal for heterosexuality, but this in itself is a contradiction. The problem with don't ask don't tell wasn't that it was removing "disruptive homosexuals", it was that it was kicking anyone out of the military simply for being homosexual. [QUOTE=Pepin;31908855]Not exactly how that is true because he's always been seen as far from a Republican until recently when Republicans have become more like that. Even then, what Republican politician is arguing for -ending the war on drugs -allowing prostitution -ending the wars -withdrawing troops from foreign soil -a different monetary policy -the end of subsides -the end of government enabled marriage -not using force to change people or their habits I can go on, but as usually, people that do this stuff are usually misinformed or don't understand his beliefs, especially regarding marriage. I'm guessing you'll bring up the news paper articles and claim he's a racist. Also, I shouldn't need to clarify this, but Alex Jones isn't a good source to listen to.[/QUOTE] Well, first of all, so far all I've needed to prove Ron Paul is ignorants is quotes from him - so I'll stick with that for now. Second of all, I already said that Alex Jones is useless (did you actually read my posts or just skim through and freak out). Yes, he has some policies that are pretty far from the usual republican platform but my point is that an odd number of his attitudes DO match for someone considering themselves libertarian. [QUOTE=Pepin;31908855]You're making a straw man argument because you're painting to picture as though that being in support of states rights is being in support of what the state does. You'd only have a point if the reason he has against the Federal Government overturning that law was that he believed that anal sex should be banned, but his opposition is clearly to an overreach of the Federal Government. A bad comparison to make is being in favor of free speech, and affirming that the WBB has the right do and say what they do. Most people are rational enough to know that you be affirming their right that you aren't condoning their principals, yet people seem to not realize that this matter is the same issue.[/QUOTE] Either you don't understand my post, or you don't understand what straw man is and you just use it as a phrase to throw out and dismiss your opponents. I'm not saying he's against liberty because he wants to ban anal sex, I'm saying he's against liberty because he thinks the states should have the right to - which is nothing but his own words. It's not that I think the federal government should be allowed to legislate those things, and it's not that I wanted the federal government to be the ones to say no - I would have been just as happy if the decision came from the state to remove the ridiculous laws. [QUOTE=Pepin;31908855]You are pulling a strawman again. I've already addressed this, but I'll just say that he's a Constitutionalist and follows it quite close. In the second paragraph you're just making hyperbole. I can do the same with a similar principal. I assume you support free speech, which must mean that you agree with NAMBLA since your position enables them to say those things. If you were opposed to what NAMBLA advocates, you'd be rational and opposed freedom of speech.[/QUOTE] Once again, you do not understand anything I am saying and are using "strawman" as a baseless rebuttal due to your inability to understand what's being said. When I say he thinks it's alright to have state enforced religion, it's not a straw man because he literally says he believes it is alright. There is no misinterpretation, one of the insane acts he wants to impose contradicts the constitution. Though he does not explicitly state that he wants to enforce state religion, he has openly expressed his acceptance of displaying religious pieces (of course from his religion) inside state buildings. You can pretend his religion will not get in the way of his policy making but it would be a load of crap. He cites a case of scouts removed from a city park, going on to say that they've made contributions to the land and should be allowed to - despite the fact that it's well known that the boy scouts openly hate on homosexuals and atheists. The boy scouts should NOT be receiving any form of state sponsorship, if anything they should be brought to court for discrimination. The first amendment, which once again someone from another country seems to know better, does extend to the state as has been held in supreme court since 1925. Also, I have to say that it's pretty embarrassing that after you tried to counter me with poorly informed and baseless arguments, a few similarly misinformed teens commented going "owned", "faggot", etc. [QUOTE=imasillypiggy;31983269]He does? May I have a source if you have one?[/QUOTE] He doesn't want to ban anal sex - he just believes that the states should have the right to. The real problem is that he looked at the law and instead of saying "those laws are ridiculous, we should prevent such laws from ever being created again" he said to himself "those laws are ridiculous, but they should be able to make them!". If he was really for "liberty" he would be for preventing inhumane and intolerant laws. The problem seems to be that he's not for the people's liberty - he's for the government's liberty to mess with the people's liberties - that they should be able to legislate pretty much anything. Certain things should not be allowed for either the state OR the federal government to mess with, and most of all, laws should have a [b]point[/b]. A law should be put in place to [b]improve[/b] the community, and trying to legislate against people doing things consensually in the privacy of their own bedrooms should not be disallowed. The law was plain and simple hate by blatant homophones, and according to what I've read so far it IS actually covered by the fourteenth amendment's due process clause, making Ron Paul's entire argument invalid. [URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#cite_note-197]Here's the link to the insanity[/URL]

I'm afraid what's going to happen if Ron Paul is elected. I think people will vote for him for the same reason I liked him before, because I didn't know what he stood for. I knew he stood for "freedom" which is a very vague term.

I can't say I'll ever support Ron Paul, not only because of his personal positions,but because I believe in a strong central government, just not an invasive one. I also don't believe very strongly in states' rights to create their own laws on issue of constitutionality and well-being, equality and rights. I don't support the idea that we should limit the federal government in this are and let the states decide for themselves, especially when if given the option many states would deny people rights and liberties in many areas. Allowing states to decide for themselves on issues such as the legality of abortion would be contradictory to supreme court decisions, which would nullify the supreme court as final law and make the sixth article and 14th amendment of the constitution really weak. I also don't believe in a strong free enterprise system, especially not one that supports the limitation of welfare programs and the continued allowance of big business and corporate interests to gamble with personal well-being. A strong free-market and low regulation system simply takes the invasiveness and well-being and protection of the citizens from the government into the hands of an unregulated greed and profit-driven group of corporations, who we can not vote for, can not force to abide by law, and can not regulate in the majority's best interest. I see many people support Ron Paul only because of his libertarian viewpoints on personal freedoms, which he himself often does not share at a personal level, but would not force on us. Just because he would not force his beliefs on us, would not mean that the states would not. Under Paul the office of the president would become a weak and nearly useless position, so voting for him would be equally as useless.

[quote]Repeal Roe v. Wade Define life at conception in law, as scientific statement Nominate only judges who refuse to legislate from the bench No tax funding for organizations that promote abortion. no experiments on frozen embryos. Withdraw funding for stem-cell research Repeal 16th Amendment and get rid of the income tax. Supports DOMA Don’t ask, don’t tell is a decent policy Gender-equal pay violates idea of voluntary contract. Supports the pledge protection act, which seeks to deprive all Federal courts, including the Supreme Court, of jurisdiction to hear constitutional challenges to the Pledge of Allegiance or its recitation banning gay adoption in DC Voted against the stimulus act and government intervention to prevent economic collapse Voted YES on ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions Voted NO on letting shareholders vote on executive compensation. Voted NO on more funding for nanotechnology R&D and commercialization. Withdrawal government funding for the arts Close Dept. of Education Encourage homeschooling & private school via tax writeoff. Present scientific facts that support creationism surpports tax-credited programs for Christian schooling Voted NO on $40B for green public schools Voted NO on allowing Courts to decide on "God" in Pledge of Allegiance Voted NO on enforcing limits on CO2 global warming pollution. Voted NO on tax credits for renewable electricity, with PAYGO offsets Voted NO on tax incentives for energy production and conservation Voted NO on tax incentives for renewable energy Voted NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies Voted NO on raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels Voted NO on $9.7B for Amtrak improvements and operation thru 2013. Voted NO on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids. Doesn’t think the US should pressure Israel to give up land for promise of peace Avoid ratifying Law of the Sea Treaty No foreign aid No alliances, which includes UN membership Voted YES on keeping Cuba travel ban until political prisoners released. Voted YES on withholding $244M in UN Back Payments until US seat restored. Voted NO on $156M to IMF for 3rd-world debt reduction. Voted NO on Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China. Sponsored bill invalidating International Criminal Court. Sponsored resolution to withdraw from UNESCO. Wants to withdraw from WTO and other international trade organizations Government investment in ANY business is malinvestment. Disallow lawsuits that stop public officials invoking God Voted NO on requiring lobbyist disclosure of bundled donations Replace Medicaid with volunteer pro-bono medical care. Socialized medicine won’t work; nor managed care Oppose mandated health insurance and universal coverage Voted NO on expanding the Children's Health Insurance Program Voted NO on giving mental health full equity with physical health Voted NO on adding 2 to 4 million children to SCHIP eligibility Voted Yes to "Repeal the Job-Killing Health Care Law" Let churches provide services for immigrants, not state. Amend Constitution to remove aliens’ birthright citizenship. No amnesty for illegal immigrants Voted YES on reporting illegal aliens who receive hospital treatment Sponsored bill banning student visas from terrorist nations Minimum wage takes away opportunities Abolish Social Security prefers Personal retirement accounts instead of social security Phaseout the death tax Voted YES on making the Bush tax cuts permanent Voted NO on establishing "network neutrality" wants to abolish federal welfare[/quote]

[QUOTE=PederPauline;31990783]Voted NO on establishing "network neutrality" Abolish Social Security Let churches provide services for immigrants, not state. Amend Constitution to remove aliens’ birthright citizenship. Socialized medicine won’t work No tax funding for organizations that promote abortion. no experiments on frozen embryos. Withdraw funding for stem-cell research [/QUOTE] Well there goes my vote. Maybe he might have some amazing redeeming factor but the more I learn of him the more I think the fp conservatives like him just because he seems to be the least crazy conservative.

[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;31997209]Well there goes my vote. Maybe he might have some amazing redeeming factor but the more I learn of him the more I think the fp conservatives like him just because he seems to be the least crazy conservative.[/QUOTE] I'd argue that he's one of the more crazy ones. Even you average conservatives understand things like federal supremacy, a strong federal government (compared to Paul's idea of one), government programs, education spending, and corporate regulation. Corporations who shell out billions a year towards conservatives who support lower corporate taxes and regulation even less than Paul still tend to stay away from him because they know his positions are radical. I'd take McCain over Paul any day, at least McCain is an intelligent fellow who at least understands halfway the concepts that Paul doesn't. But he is mostly honest, and he doesn't play media politics, and he would allow for the legalization of many things that would be better off legalized, according to progressives and liberals. But supporting Paul for simply those things is not the way to go, especially when he will simply allow the states to decide on the legality of these things on an individual basis, and not as a nation or in the national legislature, not guaranteeing any of it or pushing for or against it. If these things appeal to you, there are progressives, liberals, democrats, socialists, communists, left-libertarians, etc, who run every year who also support these ideas, without compromising on fiscal issue.

[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;31997209] Voted NO on establishing "network neutrality" [B]There is no government needed to protect us, people decide with their wallets.[/B] Abolish Social Security [B]SS should not be abolished but diminished. Say NO to welfare queens with 5 kids[/B] Let churches provide services for immigrants, not state. [B]Let people care for people instead of sucking subsidies out of the taxpayer[/B] Amend Constitution to remove aliens’ birthright citizenship. [B]Mexicans are abusing loopholes, nothing wrong here.[/B] Socialized medicine won’t work [B]Does not work great to that extent as capitalistic motivated healthcare, read up libertarianism [/B] No tax funding for organizations that promote abortion. [B]He doesn't want tax funding in general, this is ripped out of context.[/B] no experiments on frozen embryos. [B]Another fucking lie, he doesn't dictate what people can and cannot do.[/B] Withdraw funding for stem-cell research [B]same with the abortion shit, he doesn't want state funding for most things same here ripped out of context[/B][/QUOTE]