Ron Paul wouldn't call you a fruitcake, Norm. He would BAKE you a fruitcake for maintaining an anti-war, atheist website. And then he would deliver your wife's babies.

Did you see that Pat Robertson has endorsed Giuliani? If that's not proof that organized fundamentalism is more about consolidation of power in the Republican party than it is about Christianity, I don't know what is.

There's no way in hell Giuliani represents Christian values... But he's all for the path toward a dictatorship which so benefits the already rich and powerful, so he gets the support of the charlatan Robertson.

This seriously worries me.

re: Ron Paul

This is the best you can do? Another ad hominem attack? I'm disappointed Norm.

FACT: Ron Paul has more cash on hand than John Edwards

FACT: Ron Paul is a top-tier candidate

OPINION: Ron Paul doesn't stand a chance.

OPINION: Ron Paul is going to win.

Can you see the difference?

Fact: Ron Paul is a FREAK!

Ron Paul, the only candidate committed to getting the troops out of Iraq. Hes also fervently against the war on drugs and the death penalty. Why bash Ron Paul? Hes the only one with integrity as I see it.

Ron Paul, the only candidate committed to getting the troops out of Iraq.

That is simply not true. It is a lie. Shame on you.

Sorry that was me who just posted anonymously, didn't make my self clear. I meant on the republican side.

Ron Paul wouldn't call you a fruitcake, Norm. He would BAKE you a fruitcake for maintaining an anti-war, atheist website.

Paul is a hardcore Baptist that doesn't believe in the separation of church and state. With that said, he'd bake Norm a fruitcake for running an anti-war website, then "accidently" drop a screw in it for the atheism.

Ron Paul is a libertarian and strives to adhere to a consistent philosophy – and he should be given credit for that much. I disagree with a lot of what he thinks (vehemently so, in many cases), but in my opinion, his overall directness and higher degree of honesty than everyone else in the race (exception: Kucinich) should earn him more respect than to be called a fruitcake or a freak.

Look - he's wrong. He's wrong a lot! But how much sense does it make to rip Hillary a new one because she's a weasel, and not credit Ron Paul for not being a weasel.

'Ron Paul is a libertarian and strives to adhere to a consistent philosophy'

There is a Libertarian Party in the United States.

Q: Why is he running as a Republican?

A: He is a weasel.

Ron Paul may be many things, but hes no weasel. Lobbyists don't even talk to the man. Now look at Hillary she gets more money from defense contractors than any another candidate, and has said many times that Iraq's oil is of great strategic value. Get rid of the CIA, DEA, IRS, remove government secrecy, restore personal liberty, and end corporate subsidies, THATS Ron Paul.

A: He is a weasel.

Takes one to know one, eh, Syngas?

Ahm, has anybody noticed that Norm didn't call Ron Paul a fruitcake - but Washington Monthly did?

Nevertheless, Washington Monthly is right: Ron Paul has essentially one position of political value: his anti-war stance. He's against the death penalty? Good for him. But there is still too much fruitcake for my taste. I don't see the need to move from Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Dodd or Kucinich to a Republican wild card.

Why do Ron Paul supporters seem to think that libertarian = consistency, integrity, truth, etc.? It's true that he's closer to the Republican's stated principles than the major GOP candidates are, but I don't see how that makes him a paragon of integrity.

He may have a consistent "small government" position. On the other hand, liberals like Obama and Edwards have a consistent "human freedom and social justice" position. I think theirs is better than his.

I don't mind Ron Paul, as Republicans go. His supporters, are another story. They decided that Guy Fawkes (whom they learned about from a lame movie) was going to be the rallying point for raising contributions. Paul had to admit that he hadn't seen the movie.

Id vote for ron paul over all the cowards who voted for this war.

Ron Paul doesnt even understand what Libertarianism means. Ron Paul wants to restrict the rights of a woman to have the basic control over her body.

Ron Paul wants corporations to have more rights than people, under his neo-capitalistic economic system there would be no room for protections for the working class such as minimum wages, workplace safety or protections from discrimination in the work place.

While he would pull our troops out, what would he do about US corporations in Iraq exploiting Iraqi resources? Nothing. In fact more corporations would go abroad because no restrictions would be placed on them under Ron Paul.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Ron_Paul.htm

His record speaks for itself.

Of course, you may disagree with his positions, but his integrity is second to none.

So much integrity that he voted:

To allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

To shield oil companies from MTBE contamination lawsuits

Against increasing gas mileage standards

To change the 17th Amendment to repeal birthright citizenship

Against reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act of 1965

For the Defense of Marriage Act

For the school prayer amendment

Against acknowledge that genocide is taking place in Darfur

To defund OSHA's ergonomics rules.

Voted against increasing mine safety standards.

Lots of integrity there... Who needs workers rights, gay rights, womens rights, separation of church and state, environmental policy, or a plan to end genocide anyways?

Paul Krugman discusses Conscience of a Liberal and the southern strategy: http://youtube.com/watch?v=RajR6n_GzZE