digg

Ron Paul is actually a really sensible man while not perfect he seems to be the best bet. However the neo-cons in the repbulican party will probably never give him the oppertunity :(

Though I disagree with his stances on foreign policy (partially) and gay marriage, I'd vote for him for congress and probably for president depending on the other candidates (say a Guliani).

Too bad he doesn't stand a chance. He's the only Republican I would vote for. And I wouldn't vote for ANY Democrat.

He will run in the primaries as a republicn and as a Libertarian if the Republicans steal the election from him (research Steve Forbes stealing the election from Pat Buchanan in the 2000 Arizona primary).

Running as a Libertarian Ron Paul would only need 34% of the vote to have a viable chance of winning. It is possible. Everyone must set a goal of 40% Ron Paul popular vote within their own voting district. This MUST happen.

this has bipartisanship written all over it

I tend to agree with a lot of the libertarian values, but the impression that I get from most of them is that their main target is lowering taxes, which is great, but you have to work to eliminate needless programs, and then lower taxes accordingly, not lower taxes and sort of hope that the appropriate programs get cut to make up for it. But, right now Ron Paul seems to be about the only candidate that I agree with on most issues regardless of which party he is affiliating himself with right now.

Funny how the left keeps talking about how they "support the troops," but then the story's submitter felt that this guy could win more popularity votes if he pointed out that Paul voted against funding for the military. Hmm...

Lincoln Chaffee (RI) was the only Republican senator to oppse the war from the beginning. His reward? Voted out of office for the fact that he was a RINO. His own party demolished him in the primaries so he didn't have a chance for the election. History tends to repeat itself.

Death to the federal reserve in '08!

It's a dog eat dog world out there...Good Luck Ron Paul!

Too bad the invincible ignorance of this country will eat up whatever the media feeds them so he will be polarized as an extremist.

Earlier I heard a sound bite of someone spinning it that the reason people who were running for president were against this president's moves regarding the war were because they were running for president and wanted attention, as opposed to the more obvious idea that they might be running because they were disgusted with this president's handling of the situation.

i would vote for him over hillary. He is my type of libertarian.

A recent poll showed that over 60% of American voters consider themselves "socially liberal and fiscally conservative". Ron Paul could have a shot if your democracy wasn't rigged.

Sigh. Filing for an exploratory is not at all the same thing as seeking candidacy.

DO NOT LET THE NEO CONS BURY HIM!!!! COMBINED WE HAVE MORE POWER THAN THEY WILL EVER EVEN DREAM ABOUT!!!! DO WHAT YOU CAN TO SUPPORT THIS MAN!!!! AMERICA NEEDS HIM!!

If he becomes the Republican nominee, which is a longshot, I'd vote for him over the Libertarian candidate just because he has a much better chance of winning.

Any debate between Ron Paul and puppet candidates like Guliani, Obama or Romney will be worth seeing. He has no script like them they will be exposed fast. Watch for him not being allowed at major debates.

Politically-speaking, this is the best news I've heard in quite a while. Here's the math going thru my head right now:

Member of a major party
+ Against Iraq war
+ Socially liberal government policy
+ True fiscally conservative policy
+ NH Primary
+ Hillary Clinton as Dem nominee
= Best shot we've had in a long time

a good sampling of the mind of Ron Paul:
http://www.digg.com/videos/educational/Resent_Big_Brother_Government_Meet_Ron_Paul_08_presidential_candidate

don't fall for the msm hyped candidates. Ron Paul is the only real deal with a chance.

The big question is -

Will the American people choose a free society or a confiscatory society? They can't have both. If the people choose to live in a free society, they will choose Ron Paul. But if they choose to live in a confiscatory society, they will choose a "mainstream" candidate.

What is important for both the left and right to understand is this - one can be free only inasmuch as one has property rights. When one's property is not secure, one has no means to exercise one's freedom.

For example, how does one exercise freedom of the press when one is prohibited from owning the press itself? In a confiscatory (socialist) society, government owns the presses, not individuals. Thus, the government controls the use of the presses, and is able to prohibit any type of speech on any grounds it wishes. At the same time, government can grant freedom of the press, but if the government, through socialism, takes control of all the means of production, the express of freedom through the use of that property annihilated.

The same is true for all rights and all property. When government controls any property, it also controls every one's use of it. Schools, roads, hopsitals... etc. When government claim ownership of all property, government is in total control, and freedom is lost. This is where we are heading if left up to the "mainstream" candidates. Only when the people have freedom AND property rights can liberty actually be expressed. Liberty requires both freedom AND property rights. Without one, you cannot have the other.

Government may grant you the freedom to run, but what is the point if it takes away your legs?

Ron Paul understands this. That's why he worth your vote.

Choose freedom, America.

Forget Ron Paul, it's time for Barry Goldwater: http://exhumegoldwater.wordpress.com/

Ron Paul is the right man for the job. now its up to us to increase Ron Paul awareness.

Here's the first hit for the definition of greed (but any dictionary will give a similar definition):
1: excessive desire to acquire or possess more (especially more material wealth) than one needs or deserves
2. avarice: reprehensible acquisitiveness; insatiable desire for wealth

Now you can argue that no amount of desire to acquire things is excessive, or that people deserve as much as they can get their hands on, but do you really want to? These are absurd positions to maintain. In any case, I think most people who say greed is good just don't understand what greed means. It is not the same as self-interest.

100% behind Rep. Paul, what a GREAT man look at his bill he wrote
in Congress to declare Afghanistan & Iraq world wars and look who the one and only man & woman to vote
for the bill was, Your RIGHT Rep. Paul !!!!!
This should tell you that from Korea now to Iraq these war's are not to be won, just to
finance the big corporations AKA ( Haliburton ), at the expense of loss of VALUED
American life our service men & women !!!!

GET INVOLVED AND LET'S GET BEHIND A MAN WHO WILL NOT
ACCEPT ONE DIME FROM CORPORATE AMERICA !!!!!

Ron Paul has my vote and this is why: Ron is a Constitutionalist and economic scholar. He does not participate in the lucrative Congressional pension and benefit plan. He returns a portion of his annual congressional budget to the U.S. Treasury every year.
This is his voting record since 1976:
Ron has never voted to raise taxes.
Ron has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
Ron has never voted for the Iraq War.
Ron has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
Ron has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
Ron has never voted to raise congressional pay.
Ron has never taken a government-paid junket.

Ron voted against the Patriot Act.
Ron votes against regulating the Internet.
Ron voted against NAFTA and CAFTA.
Ron votes against the United Nations.
Ron votes against the corporate welfare state and polluters.
Ron votes against reinstating a military draft.

Ron votes to preserve the constitution.
Ron votes to cut government spending.
Ron votes to protect civil liberties.
Ron votes to secure our borders with real immigration reform.
Ron votes to protect religious freedom.
Source: US House of Representatives Congressional Record