Don't see any indication what he's saying isn't true. And I'm not sure "He's insane, runs a hate-site and used to work for Ron Paul" is conveying the message you want it to.

keep ****in that chicken

Why are you a Ron Paul supporter? Do you think his other positions are more important to you? That's fine.

Barack Obama claims unilateral authority to murder suspected terrorists. You can still support him without supporting that.

But if you argue that:

1) He doesn't support that right, lol
or
2) He does support that right but it's actually the moral and correct liberty position, looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooool

Again:

What message is that?

That Ron Paul is super-duper and totally not [anything bad] or something to that effect.

If you support Ron Paul's positions on gay marriage, you are an anti-gay marriage bigot. You can support Ron Paul without supporting that position, obviously.

can you back peddle faster or is this your top speed?

I was unclear in my writing, so I clarified what I meant.

He has to before he gets banned.

Legit LOLd

RAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWNNNNNNNNNNN

PAUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUULLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL.

Are we really capitalizing Ron Paul pronouns now?

Well you do it with God don't you?

yeah thanks, the above was super unclear. we were all wondering what you meant because the way you wrote it left us confused about the syntax of it all.

I agree there is lot to hate... and...

Thiiisss.

Nah. I said that for all I know the story you posted was true.

Ok, well, that makes sense. I thought maybe you were parodying a "if you voted Obama it means you want to kill all the Muslims" type post.

This reminds me, here is a good, funny summary of libertarianism written by skeptics:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Libertarianism

On Ron Paul:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ron_Paul

The wiki is generally devoted to debunking anti-science/pseudo-science/religious crankery/quackery and unsurprisingly points out that Rand Paul and Ron Paul belong to a quack organization that pushes HIV-denialism and strange theories like Obama using hypnosis to become President, Asbestos ban leading to WTC collapse during 9/11, abortion causing breast cancer, etc.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Associa...s_and_Surgeons

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associa...s_and_Surgeons

Some more on Ron Paul's relationship with pseudoscience quacks:

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/20...ckery-enabler/

I believe the Politard forum's own renodoc, famous for whining about how the government doesn't give him enough Medicare, is also a member of that organization.

A couple of reasons, I started liking him from watching the republican 2012 primary debates and reading about the candidates. He was the only one (post Gary Johnson exclusion) who repeatedly and passionately spoke out against war and the assault on civil liberties over the last decade, two important issues for me. He also seems to say what he really thinks and his congressional voting record matches his rhetoric afaik, he doesn't seem as full of it or as much of a sell out as most politicians. The fact that he is seen as a threat by the republican establishment, the mainstream media, and other entrenched wealthy/powerful interests in this country is appealing to me as well.

Oh and he cosponsored HR 2366, the online poker bill, to boot (very important to me personally). He's pro life and against gay marriage which isn't ideal for me, but the fact that he's not in favor of a federal ban on abortion or gay marriage makes him better than most republicans.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/We_the_People_Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctity_of_Life_Act

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...ist-roots.html

Am I right in my understanding that the we the people act would allow states to restrict marriage and the sanctity of life act would allow the states to restrict abortion? I think that's consistent with what I said about Paul being pro-life and anti-gay marriage at the state level, but not in favor of federal bans of gay marriage or abortion. Unless I'm misunderstanding those bills.

I personally think the constitution should protect gay marriage. I'm not as sure about constitutionally protected abortion rights but I'm generally pro-choice and I would definitely be against bans on abortion. I'm not a republican and those are among the reasons why but I supported (and voted for) Ron Paul in the primaries because all of them were pro-life and anti-gay marriage anyway.

I read the first few paragraphs and I'm not sure what the point is or how it relates to what I said. I'm aware Ron Paul has support from quite a few deeply conservative, tea party-ish and frequently evangelical voters. They want someone very conservative and Ron Paul is one of the most conservative members of congress by most common definitions of the word "conservative" in the US. It doesn't bother me that much. He also has a lot of support from socially liberal 20-something's like myself.