[Preechr]

Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

Well, those things are subjective, but I'll tell you why I don't like him:

- If he can be president, than Preechr could probably be president, which scares me to death.

Oh you just had to drag me into this didn't you Kevin? I know you know exactly where I stand on Ron Paul... you just want to make me say it, don't you? Let's counter-point, shall we, you ignorant slut...

Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

- He is anti-governmentto the point it becomes fanciful. He is of course allowed this luxury, sitting in a safe little district in Texas. But Ron Paul has never had to make a serious budget, or actually govern.

When did anti-huge-megalo-government become "anti-government?" Yes, it might be considered fanciful to promote the exact kind of government created by the Constitution? Is big-government, nanny-state fascist Democracy so ingrained in this country now, in your opinion, that Hillary and Obama... two folks that also have never had to make a serious budget, or actually govern... are the only practical and realistic choices?

Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

- He opposes birtright citizenship.

For non-citizens, yes he does... So? His whole campaign exists only to speak for millions of Libertarian ideologues that have no voice in this election. I'm pretty sure all the Republican candidates oppose the idea that American citizenship should be rewarded to those that sneak across the border illegally at 8 1/2 months and drop a kid. That's "daisy-chain" citizenship, and he's against that too.

I'm not, by the way, but I'm wondering why you are for it. Despite the NS and public health risks, I'm all for porous borders and free and open immigration because this policy is the quickest way to destroy the nanny-state altogether

Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

- He wants us to withdraw from NATO and the UN.

...and again, how is that different from what you would hear from just about any Republican, candidate or not? ...and what is your fundamental stance on sticking with tired diplomatic bodies that honor dictators and despots and disparage free governments? How does America gain anything by continuing to participate in these organizations as they are currently constructed, Kevin?

Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

- He wants to get rid of social security.

Well, maybe that's better than allowing the charade to continue. Are you personally willing to continue funding this scam knowing you will never benefit from it? The baby-boomers are starting to collect "benefits" they do not need and it is the folks of our generation that will be paying two and three times the current donation rate... AND WE WILL NEVER SEE THE PROGRAM WORKING FOR US.

Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

- He voted against sending relief money to the victims of Hurricane Katrina.

Yeah... he's a very strict Constitutionalist. So was Thomas Jefferson, another noted crack-pot. Federal disaster "relief" is a perfect example of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Can you make the case that the Federal government filled any actual need or provided any actual "relief?" It seems that I recall a lot of waste, fraud and abuse with regard to the "relief" programs, with only a few reports of problems with Red-Cross or the many private programs and initiatives that actually did the lion's share of the work required to get New Orleans back on it's feet.

Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

- He would try to abolish the IRS and the Dept. of Ed., and leave schooling up to "local governments." (Creationism in every red state here we come)

Yes, God forbid we re-think bureaucratic nightmares that are working soooo well. It's over $60 billion now to fund the administration of the DOE, with not a dime of that spent on actually educating the first student. This was a core broken promise of the Contract with America, so again, it seems you just don't like the guy because he's a Republican.

Care to defend your belief that these departments are worth continued funding, Kev?

Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

- He oppposes almost every form of foreign aid, and IN MY OPINION, has a very, very naive and foolish outlook on foreign policy. He doesn't support the war on terrorism, and is essentially an isolationist. He supports trade, but not "managed" trade. So, no economic trade deals that actually provide jobs and such to weak economies with shitty governments.

Well now here we go. You are right. When it comes to globalization, he is very weak and yes, naive. This is why I could never vote for him. This is why I no longer consider myself a supporter of the Libertarian Party. Yes, when it comes to the most important sea-change in our nation's history and supporting the most positive revolutionary ideal since the one that this country was founded upon, I am a single-issue voter.

Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

I'm sure there's more, like why he's getting donations from white power group leaders, but I'll stop there.

Ok, we've established that you don't like Ron Paul simply because he is a Republican, which means your litmus test must be whether or not a candidate is a Democrat. Glad you brought up donations, in that light, Kev... Now we can talk about where Senator Clinton's war-chest is coming from, or is that even possible to know with all the bundling? How about we talk about the house Senator Obama lives in? ...or maybe his stance on flag pins and standing for the national anthem?

Who's funding the Democrats these days, Kevin?