In that neither Romney or Gingrich don’t want to decriminalize all drugs, end central banking, and have a military isolationist foreign policy, you are correct.
By personal liberties you also have personal responsibility. Becoming a mother is a personal decision and the financial burden is no longer society’s burden but their own.
So, do you think he would advocate cancelling all benefits? Really? How is this not getting aired in the liberal media?
The liberal media know Ron Paul is not a credible candidate, and so have been treating him like an entertaining uncle rather than a candidate whose current or past views deserve investigation.
I didn’t mean to imply that. Yes, he would definitely take more Republican votes than Obama votes.
You’re missing the point. We don’t need to worry about angering Islamists; we need to not worry so much about everyone else and stop policing the world.
I’ve found that to be true as well…household income is what is considered.
And that would give Obama the election.
We can deal with legitimate government’s diplomatically, but we do not need troops stationed all over the world.
Why not? Having troops in the region helps. A large part of what we are doing in Saudi is training…diplomats can’t conduct military training.
US News and USA Today have him leading Iowa polls: usnews.com/news/articles/2011/12/19/ron-paul-takes-lead-in-iowa-caucus-poll
no health care?
If Paul proves himself to be a credible candidate by winning Iowa, he’ll get a lot more attention. I would love to see that, but he has always been a niche candidate without much appeal beyond the libertarian wing of the Republican Party. I think most of the media are on target in focusing on other candidates with better potential to win the nomination.
You’re going to have to define your terms. Are the bigoted media synonymous with the liberal media, a subset of the liberal media, inclusive of both liberal and conservative media? And what particular bigotry are they exhibiting?
They don’t report the income of the man. And the govt agencies don’t investigate, because they want more people on the dole, their budgets swell. So that is easily scammed.
You can say it as much as you want, but that doesn’t make it right. You aren’t thinking about proportionality. Just look at your sentence: “yes, Obama supports abortion and that is terrible, but…” But? Are you seriously saying that the foreign policy of Romney or Gingrich which you obviously disagree with is as morally grave and urgent as the issue of the sanctity of life contained in the abortion issue? You have your priorities out of whack. Allow Obama another four years and two more justices and expect abortion on demand to be the law of the land in all fifty states for another generation or longer. When that happens don’t complain because you will have blown your chance to prevent that out of a misguided belief that our civil liberties are in some kind of imminent collapse. John McCain wants to detain us all! Therefore allow the guy who wants to cement abortion on demand to be the law of the land - Obama - win the election. Those who support Ron Paul are letting the perfect (what they think is perfect) to be the enemy of the good, or even letting the perfect be the enemy of letting evil flourish. Abortion and a senate bill supported by McCain are not of equal gravity. The only way for evil to flourish is for good people to do nothing. Or for good people to cling to the “perfect” candidate with no chance of winning.
If you’re referring to America, keep in mind that we had a monopoly on nuclear weapons for years and obviously didn’t use them. Think about that- we were the only country for years that had them, and then we had overwhelming superiority for years and didn’t use them. So why should we fear?