wow, you like Mit, the only person in history... "on video".... changing his mind about everything just to get the vote????
as i have said before, most that do not like ron paul, think that because of his personal views... but his plan for government is to let us have our own ways too... and what i see from these people is they do not want freedom for everyone, they want to have people do as they want them to... sorry if a government comes along that will take my guns, or my right to speak my mind, i will fight them till my very death.... and Obama and Mit both want to shut you up, tell you what to do, and take our guns so we can't say anything about it... sorry if the people who voted on you should see this i don't think it would be too good for you.

I am first and foremost a Nobama.

Second I am NeveRon.

After that I dislike Mittens.

However we have more to live for, more freedom, more prosperity under Mitt than the other two

1) A lie
2) He says he votes it down for political purposes
3) It shows his big spending behavior

Ron Paul would remove our forces from the world, losing us the ability to fight our first line of defense away from our nation.

His amateur hour laws, and his clear mental problems would set us in a death spiral economically.

Ron Paul is the RETARD of politics.

Einstein, you're arguing that Congress isn't wasteful and they wouldn't spend as much if the powerful Rep. Paul didn't take some. Hahahahaha you're a naive socialist!? (Edit: I understand that this isn't a serious argument, calling you a socialist; but you're suddenly, conveniently, pretending that Congress wouldn't give the goodies to somebody else. That's just laughable.)

You didn't even respond to my second point. Regardless of the point he makes with his vote, I explained why his constituents deserve the money as much as anybody else (who would get it if they didn't). Your equivocation over how he votes and why doesn't change the point.

You didn't respond to the third point either. What part of "what you accuse Mr. Paul of accounts for only a TINY amount of government spending, while he's one of the ONLY politicians arguing strongly against the actual problems with our spending" did you not understand?

He's a "big spender" compared to which Republicans in Congress? Try to give us some examples so we can laugh at your ignorance and arrogance in calling him a "big spender," being a Republican yourself. You'll be strained to find a single example of a more fiscally conservative candidate, yet you accuse of him being a "big spender" because you feel threatened by his position of actually advocating real freedom.

This is why I accuse you of being an intellectual coward: Absolutely ridiculous arguments like this. You're a Republican, calling Rep. Paul a "big spender"? Compared to who? Do they argue, as he does, against MASSIVE constitutional overreaches in domestic and foreign spending? No. Your argument is ridiculous on its face. You're openly hypocritical. You know what you're saying is false, so you just get mad over it and say it anyway.

Is this all over your head? Maybe you shouldn't vote, or run for office.

No where did you say anything in my post?

How could you? I'm logged in as me, you're logged in as you.

And YOU're accusing OTHERS of being on drugs, mentally disabled, paranoid, schizo (spelled wrong), hallucinogenic (spelled wrong) simpletons?

Try harder. You're just embarrassing yourself. You're incoherent. What you just said literally makes no sense. You refuse to address the subject matter directed to you. But damn can you throw an incomprehensible tantrum!!

So what?

That he's "in the tops for pork" doesn't make him a "big spender" relative to anybody else. This point eludes you.

He's arguing against actual wastes of significant amounts of money. Those you support do not. Yet you would call people who want to cut back .07% in spending fiscally conservative and Paul, who would actually drastically reduce spending, a "big spender" because of his inclusion of "pork," a tiny part of the budget? (Which wouldn't be reduced if he didn't ask for any)

That's absolutely retarded. It doesn't make any sense. It's wrong by the math. Having trouble with numbers? Maybe politics isn't your game. I know! Let's have a spelling contest!

Einstein is more of a "big spender" than Rep. Paul. Pointing this out to him will result in name-calling Rep. Paul a "big spender," regardless of the fact that it's just not true by any definition or mathematical framework.

Washington is filled with people like Einstein, who are willfully ignorant or willfully stupid when it comes to getting along with their fellow party members. Corruption and stealing from future generations doesn't work unless everyone is involved!

Ron Paul is more fiscally conservative [to my knowledge] than any other member of Congress. [I did ask for an example of someone more fiscally conservative. Einstein was unable to provide one] Absolutely every single way you can try to do the math backs up this claim. I might support a little more international military presence (if we could get our act together, which we won't), but even with such a reduction in Rep. Paul's supported cuts, he'd STILL be, by FAR, the most fiscally conservative guy in the room.

Calling him a "big spender" is just ignorant and stupid. And you know it, Einstein. Calling him names is just childish and stupid. You know he's not a big spender. You've had this pointed out to you and explained. You didn't respond or dispute a word of it. You've been asked for examples of who's more fiscally conservative. You didn't provide one single example.

You know you're making false statements. Instead of getting mad and calling people names, maybe you should think about why the truth upsets you so much.

Thank you for your service, Cougar.

I can't decide if I should vote for Ron Paul or Gary Johnson this fall.

> Noir wrote:

> [sorry Noir, no personal links allowed]

My favourite comment was this:  My broad spectrum of experience gives me insight few, if any can achieve.

Makes me this my whole education was a huge waste, i should rather work as a security guard or drive around lol

Education isn't everything... Paper wisdom only carries so much weight.

You say your a marine.

Go ask people around you, are you voting for Mitt or Paul.

Nuff sais there.

I am working for a living with a severely hard, but decently well paying, job.

I am a truck driver.

I am part of the MOST regulated induistry in the United States, so don't give me that shit that I don't know how ruinous SOME regulations can be.

CSA 2010, HOS Rules just passed, Weighscales in Minnesota count energy drinks as proof of fatigued driving, illinois prohibitning laptops from being used... even as mapping devices... and so on.

I also know the abuse of authority such as the two tickets I got in California where when I was unsure how to pay... instead of a friendly reminder letter... I got notices of 'failure to appear' and an extra $300 penalty added to each.

Think on that.. a parking ticket got me a $540 total fee with an infraction followed by a misdemeanor... (revoked upon payment ofc).

I see abuse every day.

What I want to do is shut down absive agencies outright (or if essential cut them to 60% of actual needed employees, after trimming the fat, in a message to them about abuse) and slap down all sorts of abusers.

I want to end reckless spending (imho the US budget should be 1 trillion dollars right now and be balanced on EVERYTHING)

Trying to nay say me is stupid.

But thqt describes Libertarians who cannot understand some regulations are helpful.

A libertarian would allow an explosives laden truck to be driven by an 18 year old new driver with 20 hours of constant driving through your neighborhood because they are anti-regulation.

A Libertarian would allow a fuel truck driver to get in his truck and drive drunk so long as he takes 'personal responsibility' for his accident and accepts jail time.

A Libertarian never learned that there is evil until suddenly war which could devour their nation happens, then they finally grow Conservative and stop their fanciful idealism.

A Libertarian does not accept belief that some people, like fleet managers with bonuses on the line, will threaten others under them with firing, crap pay, or other threats, to go beyond what that person is capable of safely doing.

If Kemp drove a truck for 1 year he would come back here, apologize to me, renounce Libertarianism, and embrace Conservatism.

this is what kind of person you get if you vote Mit in to office.

1. He denied accusing Newt of exaggerating/lying about his part in Reagan