Let me get this straight, Your analysis is as follows:

"Ron Paul doesn't have 100 million dollars so he isn't legitimate. Let's hope the GOP keeps him out of the debates to ensure their respectability."

One of the few Republicans who has been right about the war since the beginning and you dismiss him out of hand because he's behind on fundraising? How much is Guliani paying you?

If you're being this retarded free gratis, my apologies.

Anyone that has money to throw away on this idiot send it to me. I'll use it wisely. A gallon of Jack Daniels would go real nice. Talk about people who's ego's have driven them crazy. Look around and see about 20 of them daily, running for president with the same chance of winning I would have. NONE

We complain that the elections are bought by corporations and that elected officials are lap dogs of these corporations. Perhaps we the voters, are to blame. Perhaps if both liberal and conservative voters would shun the candidates with the large money things would change. May I suggest that we the voters pull the lever for the Liberterian if you are conservative and the Green candidate if you are liberal. Since neither of these parties are bought and they both truly believe in their postions, we the public would be treated to a true honest debate as to where we as a nation wish to go.

Winston Smith

matt ~ I don't dismiss Ron Paul because he can't raise the money to compete. I dismiss him because he's a lunatic fringe moron who wouldn't have a prayer of beating the Margin of Error numbers if you gave him $10 million.

If he were an honest "Libertarian," he would change his party affiliation. He doesn't, though, because then the GOP would run someone else and he would lose. So much for your "man of principles."

Has he abandoned his old position of "open borders," too?

When we used paper ballots, it could be said your ballot was better used as toilet paper than to waste it voting for Ron Paul. With the modern touch-screens, though, they would probably take a dim view of that.

Wow... feel the hate flowing in this thread.

I don't get the disgust with Ron Paul, sure he's out on the libertarian fringe of the GOP, but I certainly would welcome him to the debates.

It'd be good to have someone there who will call a spade a spade if any of the major candidates should give in any impulses to introduce lovely new government programs.

So while I certainly wouldn't vote for Paul in my Primary I might throw a few dollars his way to allow his voice to help shape the debate. I'd certainly prefer him as a candidate over a number Hagle or Tancredo, and call it neck-and-neck between him Brownback.

The key is that if the GOP is to be a "big tent" party, then it's good to have a diverse chorus of voices in the internal debate.

I'm tired of the same old poops being recycled every 4 years, I would welcome Ron Paul into the mix. I have seen him debate in congress and he seems to be the only one up there fighting for our rights while the rest of the congress takes a nap. I don't think he would run on the Libertarian ticket because he would probably lose no matter what he did. McCaine is no more a Republican than hitler, yet there he is helping the great highway to canada and Mexico open and thousands of people in his state lost their homes because of this, so Ron Paul is looking pretty good, but then again, I voted for Perot, didn't everybody? now he's labeled as a nut and Ron Paul is on the lunatic fringe? The Bush cheerleaders are out in force I see.

Wow, Jim you sure are an unpleasent fellow. It seems like you hate Ron Paul as much as Howard Dean hates GWB. That is too bad.

If we only allow the preapproved candidates to debate we will only get Rockefeller people on either side.

I guess you're not very thoughtful.

I don't "hate" Ron Paul. I do hate STUPIDITY, though.

Do you "Paul pups" even know what this idiot stands for? He's not only against Iraq, he's against ANY military deployments outside our borders except as direct response to attack. He thinks the federal government should have NO LAWS and NO ROLE against child pornography. Unless he has completely flip-flopped, which I wouldn't put past him (most Libertarian morons have), he supports OPEN BORDERS.

Not just a liberalized immigration policy, but NO immigration policy.

Now, if you support Paul because you agree with him on such issues, you are as stupid as he is. BUT ~ if you support him WITHOUT knowing his position on issues, you are even more stupid.

If y'all find that "unpleasant," tough cookies. The truth is often unpleasant. This is "tough love," children, because "friends don't let friends vote for Libertarians."

Now, hand over the keys and step away from the Diebold machine . . .

I don't know where you are getting your info but Ron Paul is not for open borders, he supports Tom Tancredo who is totally against open borders and illegal immigration, I am against deploying troops outside our borders to fight for other countries too, we have world soldiers out there not troops defending America which is what our troops are supposed to do, we still have troops in every country and military bases in 140 countries, if someone did attack us on our own soil who would defend us? As for the porn, I never heard that so I can't comment, I do know that Ron Paul has a big family and a lot of grandchildren, I doubt he would advocate child pornography and that is the first I have heard of that, I will check it out. The point I was trying to make is that anyone should be able to run for President, not just a chosen few picked by congress over and over again. Hillary said she would not run, she is running, another lie before she even begins, this is getting tiresome. I don't think Ron Paul or Tom Tancredo would continue to pay dues to the UN, they're not elected officials but they are making laws for us and our country and these are the things I would like to see change, including getting rid of the national reserve and the banking cartel. If you don't agree with this that's fine but the last time I looked there was still some semblence of free speech left in Amexicana and I am taking advantage of it without name calling, ie;Paulpups and stupid. I am a moderate republican but have voted otherwise so I am open minded to any candidate with better ideas for us, not the world, we pay the taxes, not Iraq or Africa or anywhere else our money is going.I'm all for a candidate who is thinking about the future of America above all else.

I did NOT say Paul "advocated child porn," I said "He thinks the federal government should have NO LAWS and NO ROLE against child pornography." If his position has changed, it's a flip-flop.

If he now supports ANY sort of immigration policy, that's good - but it is a flip-flop from his 1988 campaign AND the position of the LP from its inception. So much for "libertarian principles" if they can be reversed so easily for political purposes, huh?

He has always been against any deployments of US forces, and still is. Even most leftist Democrats aren't that crazy.

If Libertarians like Ron Paul had been in charge during the Cold War, you would be speaking Russian today.

Insanity is a legitimate political position in America, which is why we have Ross Perot, Pat Buchanan, Al Sharptongue, and Dennis Kucinich to entertain us. Don't pretend a nutcase like Paul is a "conservative alternative," though. He's not.

I can't fault anyone for flip flopping, I voted for Bush and I have done a complete flip flop on that one. I would vote for Buchannon, I voted for Perot, I will vote for anyone who is not in the elitist group of reruns and shoo ins, I would probably vote for Tom Tancredo too. Hillary? I think not, McCaine, talk about sneaky republicans, he is not a republican as far as I'm concerned, he's all for immigration,that's for sure. We have got to get some new blood in the whitehouse, people who are not going to perpetuate the present agendas, I think America is heading down a path of oblivion, I am especially against land grabbing in the name of environmental issues and eminent domain, none of the forerunners in this group are against the things I am against from what I have read and seen, especially Hillary and McCain, I think people should vote their conscience and that's what I am going to do or else I won't vote at all. This is just my opinion and it is the opinion of many so I don't feel like a fringe nut, Tom tancredo has already gotten threats, I'm not surprised but it is mind boggling that people are not willing to vote for who they want to because it is a wasted vote, as long as people are told that then thats the way it will be , no vote should be considered wasted. As for Ron Paul, maybe his ideas changed on some issues, he wouldn't be the first one to changes some of his ideas, I will have to read up more on his present beliefs and ideas, if I don't like them then I will not vote for him. I think campaigning two years before election is ridiculous, who is minding the store and doing the jobs they were elected to do while they are touring the country for money and votes? What ever happened to campaign reform? Anyhoo, we're all entitled to our opinions at the end of the day.

so when Paul loses, he will be supporting the GOP Nominee, as any Party Member should?

on another note, Madeleine?

'path of oblivion'?

you sound so overt, and negative.

your vote for Perot only empowered the Clintons...

Buchanan is a pure isolationist-alarmist, far from being a sound Conservative.

and if you could vote again, voting for Buchanan, you would have only empowered the Democrat.

some have lost context of the Democrat insanity.

some are drifting into irrational territory.

This is a fine President, one of the few in Washington who is still willing to fight the GWOT.

but some have lost sight of the positives, and seem eager to empower the liberal folly.

very sad indeed.

'Insanity is a legitimate political position in America, which is why we have Ross Perot, Pat Buchanan, Al Sharptongue, and Dennis Kucinich to entertain us. Don't pretend a nutcase like Paul is a "conservative alternative," though. He's not.'

Posted by Jim Addison

'Insanity is a legitimate political position in America, which is why we have Ross Perot, Pat Buchanan, Al Sharptongue, and Dennis Kucinich to entertain us. Don't pretend a nutcase like Paul is a "conservative alternative," though. He's not.

Posted by Jim Addison'

well said...

thank you...

As I believe I said, if more people voted for the candidate of their choice then maybe that candidate would win, if any party other than the dems or the gops are not eligible to put a candidtate up there then someone should inform them of that, I don't think they know. I personally am sick and tired of people telling others they are stupid for not voting for the person they want you to vote for, they are stupid for saying that OK? I voted for Bush, shame on me, I won't make the same mistake again, you vote for whomever you want to vote for , I know I will and that's how it should be.