West

If his Texas district wasn't sympathetic to his views, he wouldn't have a political career; I'd imagine he'd just be delivering babies. The reason why he got into politics was in response to Nixon removing us from the gold standard if I remember correctly. Paul was already familiar with von Mises and other Austrian economists who extolled a free market system. I disagree that he would flip flop, for reasons I've already stated and thought were sufficient, but what if he did only serve one obstructionist term (which will most likely be the case if anything)? Isn't that better than anything the Democrats would do if they were in the office instead? Would this be grounds to vote for him on the basis that he is the lesser evil?

What makes you think that he will compromise his values? What evidence is there to suggest that he will suddenly flip-flop after 40 years of consistency? There's plenty of reason to believe the contrary; he's nicknamed Dr. No for good reason. Lobbyists don't even visit his door anymore. I respect the fact that he does not cave in to pressure groups on any level, nor would he to what the Republican Party has become. That's his whole platform--that fact that he is against the recent takeover by Neo-cons (he's mentioned this numerous times in debate) of the Republican Party, wishing to get back to what he calls the roots. If the only way he could get the nomination is by pandering or compromising his values, then you're right; there's absolutely no chance he'll get the nomination. If I were to bet on the state of things, I'd put my money with that assertion over the notion that he'd suddenly renege on a pristinely consistent record if he "magically got elected".

I think his voting record for the last 40 years is pretty indicative that he won't vote for the above measures. He's never voted for a bill of that sort, and he consistently opposes those ideas in debate. I'll provide more documentation if needed, but here's a video to start:

The We the People act and Sanctity of Life act are abominations, but I would still prefer a candidate who looks consistently to the constitution for support as opposed to the bible. He is religious, as are all of the candidates technically, but he repeatedly criticizes other candidates that flaunt their religion as part of their platform. He criticized Romney on Leno for this, and referenced Sinclair Lewis in regards to Mike Huckabee's holiday ad (remember the "When Fascism comes, it's going to be wrapped in the flag, carrying a cross" comment?) I think he's pretty clear on the role of government, with a few grave exceptions. His voting record is pretty indicative of that. I'd vote for Ron Paul over any Democrat, and that's what it really comes down to to me.

I see my error and concede my previous argument. I guess it didn't sound pragmatic in my head, but I understand and accept your arguments after further thought. That aside, I think that the arguments I see aimed at Ron Paul would be more suitable for Mike Huckabee. Mike Huckabee is the absolute last person I would vote for. The reason why I see Ron Paul as being the best of the worst is because his voting record is at least based on the constitution (I don't believe religion to play a part in his system--he just wrongly defines life; it's a grave mistake, but he's not deliberately evil. Apparently it stems from his experience as a doctor and coming into contact with abortions) whereas every remaining candidates are unprincipled, pragmatic, or religious. Obama thinks the constitution is a living document and should 'change with the times', even if it violates the rights of a minority. I don't even know if Hillary knows what the constitution even is. The rest of the possible Republican candidates are just as bad, if not worse. As far as the argument of introducing new evils goes, isn't increasing already accepted Socialist or statist views a major consideration? I would think that introducing new views is more easily opposed than widely-accepted notions that are evil. I will do some research and thinking tonight to see if constructing an argument around this is worth my time.

Shouldn't I be more concerned with things that violate my rights on a daily basis versus that which I will most likely never come into contact with? In the long range, I'm going to be paying 30% of my income (or whatever it is now) every year, I won't own allodial title to my property and thus they can tax my property and regulate just about everything I do with it, yet by the time I die, I'll most likely never have an abortion. How is it pragmatic to vote for change that benefits me most in the long run? Is my property not an extension of my life? @David: I don't understand why the proper question is "which candidate introduces new philosophical elements into politics which are not already accepted (mal)practice, and which have far-reaching consequences for your life." Do you really think that we are at the point where we can't expect anything different, and thus should accept the current political landscape and vote only against new threats and intrusions to our rights?

Quick post before bed: Would it be better to vote for a candidate that supports views that directly affect me (taxes, socialized medicine) or a candidate that supports views that I don't really care about because they don't directly affect me [abortion (you can just go to another state to have it done!)]? I think dealing with potential problems is less important than dealing with actual problems.

This is the most absurd and gross comparison I've ever heard. A comment of this sort only leads me to think that you have absolutely no knowledge of his platform and voting record. He at the very least had the acuity to vote against the civil rights act of 1964, despite being called a racist. He did so on the grounds that it would allow government to breach a businessman's rights as well as not provide a remedy for racial tension. @intellectualammo: Instead of appealing to an authority, can you give me a brief summation of how you came to these conclusions and why they are your position? Aside from that, Ron Paul opposes the Iraq War and did so before we went into it. It's my understanding that the ARI does not agree with it in hindsight, but that's neither here nor there. The fact is that they were not responsible for 9/11, and that is Ron Paul's argument. He voted for capturing and eliminating Bin Laden, on bills H.R. 4655 and H.R. 2655 (September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001). He never said he doesn't want to go after terrorists, but he thinks that the abrogation of rights here at home are the number one priority. How you can possibly equate him with Mike Huckabee is beyond me and I can't imagine how you can do so without an evasion of one sort or another. Ron Paul at his worst has a false definition of life, and I agree that the Sanctity of Life act is evil, just as the We the People act is evil, but they have little chance of passing, nor do I think it's a priority of his. To me, Ron Paul represents the best, most practical vote among candidates. My #1 concern is the persecution of Americans' rights, and further, of businessmen and producers. The day that medicine becomes socialized in America is the day when I start considering an alternate country. I don't see how going to war with Iraq was protecting the rights of our citizens. I think you guys attach too much importance to the name 'Libertarian'. If you ignore his face and ignore his party for one moment and match up his platform views and voting record to EVERY other candidate, I can't see how you can possibly vote for any other candidate. He has never voted for taxes, he's against corporate welfare, against the Patriot Act, against regulating the internet, against the war on drugs, etc etc. Of course you can do this research and look at his almost pristine voting record on your own, before making such ludicrous statements, and I suggest you do.

Edit: I apologize, I was given erroneous information. According to my further research, he is being excluded, as evidenced by the NH GOP pulling their sponsorship from the Fox GOP debate.

Ron Paul will be included in the debate due to his resulting percentage in the Iowa caucus.

First, what do you mean by 'using the Democratic Party in my self-defense'? Second, What do you mean by practical? To achieve the ends I desire, Ron Paul is by far the most reasonable candidate. Libertarian? Last time I checked, he's running on the Republican ticket, and has been in Congress almost 20 years as a Republican. I am aware that he ran in 88' as a libertarian, but attempts to villify him because of the stigma the ARI attributes to the term 'libertarian' is not a good enough reason to discount Ron Paul. I'm not saying that Ron Paul is a God, I'm saying he is the best choice among the field for presidency. Edit: I would choose Obama or Hillary over Huckabee any day, but I would have to think about Edwards, as I do not know his full platform and would have to enlighten myself as to his principles or lackthereof.

With the exception of Mike Huckabee, I'd prefer any Republican candidate to the selection of a Democrat candidate. Edit: I concur with Darkwater and do not think Kucinich nor any other candidate could be the model for a painting entitled 'Allegory of Integrity'.

This is how I ranked it: Slug Abigail Sinbad Ivan Gregory Slug was the most morally repulsive because he initiated the use of force. Abigail is an obvious second to me, Sinbad the nihilist as you correctly put it is in third, Ivan who abstains from the situation is fourth. Gregory is the best of the five because I thought his choice to reject Abigail was a greater moral decision than Ivan's.

For clarification purposes, his son's name is Randall "Rand" Paul. His other son's name is Ronald "Ronnie" Paul, Jr.

I'm surprised at the comments that place the Incredibles even near Ratatouille. I thought the Incredibles was great until the last 15 minutes or so. I thought the closing actions and statements were in praise of mediocrity; I can't go for that. Ratatouille is not only a great film, but an incredibly unique film. It's rife with implicit and explicit symbolism for the greatness of man, when he chooses to be so. The thing that differentiates it from most hero-triumphs-over-villain films is the fact that the villain is not only destroyed in spirit, but the parasite becomes a creator! I'd say the only animation film that comes close to being as good as Ratatouille is Antz.

I like some commercials as well. Two of my favorites: (Levis) (VW)

Just for clarification, Tamara De Limpicka painted these way before the books were ever written.

I think Ron Paul is by far the best candidate. I disagree with his views on abortion, but he maintains that it is not for the federal government to decide. At the 2008 South Carolina debate, when asked what three federal programs he would eliminate, he replied, 'I'd start with the department of education, the department of energy, and the department of homeland security..'. His voting record indicates that he's pretty consistent with his views, and appears to be the candidate most likely to protect the rights of individuals.