<p>I often agree with Vyse… I agree with Vyse. ;)</p>
<p>Yeah, and Pat Buchanan’s cool too.</p>
<p>Ron Paul said in one of the debates he would not necessarily support the Republican nominee. If he were a Republican, he would be a traitor. After Paul drops out of the Republican race, the Libertarians want him as their candidate. Why? Because Paul is a Libertarian and not a Republican.</p>
<p>[Official</a> Website of the Libertarian National Committee](<a href=“http://www.lp.org/media/article_545.shtml]Official”>http://www.lp.org/media/article_545.shtml)</p>
<p>i’m glad i have a red x to instantly end my relationship to razorsharp.</p>
<p>How do you get the red x?</p>
<p>The Republicans didn’t support him in his 1994 run for Texas Congressman despite the fact that his opponent in the Republican primary was a Democrat who had just converted for that race. Ron Paul’s allegiance is to conservatism and conservatives. He can’t endorse someone who he believes isn’t a real conservative? (Was he a traitor back in 1976 too when he was one of only 4 GOP super delegates to back Reagan instead of Ford?)</p>
<p>
it’s on the top-right corner of your screen ;)</p>
<p>Ha! Except, the x is white, not red, but it’s in a red box.</p>
<p>Can you Paul fanboys (fangirls) calm down at some point? I’m sure everyone is aware of your support for his candidacy, but besides agreeing with each other you’ll only face derision from most.</p>
<p>Paul has very radical plans, and while I agree with some of them, he will never be elected. The only point to his campaign is, I assume, drawing attention to causes that he feels the American people need to know of.</p>
<p>Well I’m not exactly the most ardent Paulite (as you would know if you read some of my older posts ;)), one doesn’t have to love the man to understand that he is a classical Republican, and rebut attempts to paint him as some kind of huge radical.</p>
<p>I have lots of problems with Paul, including but not limited to: his ridiculous ideas about macroeconomics; his horrible environmentalist perspective; bad(ish) ideas about free trade; and his universal health care position.</p>
<p>But I also think he is one of the most principled candidates, I like much of what he stands for, and I also think he personally is unfailingly honest and very admirable.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Of Ron Paul’s many nutty ideas, returning to the gold standard is among the nuttiest. Here’s what a Republican commentator had to say about it on NPR:</p>
<p>[Marketplace:</a> Gold standard won’t make things better](<a href=“http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2007/12/05/gold_standard/]Marketplace:”>http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2007/12/05/gold_standard/)</p>
<p>Excerpt:</p>
<p>"There are three things one would want a monetary policy to do. You can do any two of these three things, but never all three at once. You can keep the domestic purchasing power of money stable. Or, you can keep your currency stable relative to other currencies. Or, you can allow money to flow freely across borders.</p>
<p>Today we choose domestic price stability plus capital freedom. That still seems the right choice.</p>
<p>But there other choices, including the old-fashioned choice favored by Dr. Paul – the one that says that when it’s time for an economy to make an adjustment, the adjustment should be felt good and hard."</p>
<p>The best thing that can be said about Ron Paul is that there is no danger whatsoever that he will get elected president. He started out as a distant also-ran in the Republican race and has remained there.</p>
<p>He wants to cut the department of education, he thinks Abraham Lincoln made a bad decision going to war, he has made many racist remarks in his newsletter. He wouldn’t be a terrible president for the simple fact that he couldn’t do anything. But comeon.</p>
<p>This is from an email I got from a friend. Not sure who wrote it:</p>
<p>
</code></pre>
<p>There are also examples of censorship from the media deliberately leaving out Ron Paul’s name, and they keep saying he’s ‘not electable.’ Why not let the American people decide that? It’s funny how people just regurgitate what they’ve been fed. I don’t hear anyone saying Giulini si ‘not electable’ and Ron Paul has beat him in every primary so far, has more $$, etc. So when people say Ron Paul is ‘not electable’ it’s so obvious that they are not thinking for themselves.</p>
<p>Whether he ultimately wins the election is not relevant at this point. The point is that he is just as much a viable candidate as anyone else and people should not just believe what the media tells them as to who is electable and who isn’t. The media has a bias against Ron Paul so their opinions are worthless.</p>
<p>Don’t believe there is a media bias? There are numerous examples. Here is one that is blatant:</p>
<p>As another example, check this out:</p>
<p>[Daily</a> Dose](<a href=“ronpaul.com”>ronpaul.com)</p>
<p>Scroll down to the screen shot from Faux News, where it says ‘Fair and balanced? You be the judge.’</p>
<p>Look closely at the picture. Compare the choice of pictures with the scores. So blatant!!</p>