Why dont you admit the real reason you wont vote for him is because you dont want your precious aid to Israel stopped, America can go bankrupt for all you care as long we have Israels back. You liberal chickenhawk POS.
I read your entire post. I agree with Max's assessment. You are not a fiscal conservative. Your comment regarding "killing Islamists at a respectable rate" clearly defines what your interests are in, and why. You then go on to mention how "Ron Paul's other policies are so extreme" yet neglect to mention any specifics. I think Max has you summed up rather nicely.
I'm afraid that I disagree and will vote against Ron Paul at every opportunity even if it means voting for the worst President in our history in the General Election. I hadn't realized that you harbored such irrational views as they had not been evident in your previous posts. Guess we'll all just vote for whomever we like and see what the outcome is. As I said, I think a Perry/Rubio ticket could be a winner. Just what the country needs. An insane old RINO is definitely unelectable. A conservative like me cannot support such a candidate under any circumstance. I'm sorry that you cannot discern the difference between a nut and a fiscal conservative.
Paul is the most peaceful presidential candidate .You have nerve saying you don't trust Paul when you are the warmonger who has admitted to supporting all the wars and the US being the world police.You don't trust Paul with nuclear weapons but I bet you would support a Nuclear World War 3 over Israel .
Yeah, no kidding. Boehner is as bad as Obama with a less than 1% reduction in federal spending achieved during the debt limit fight. But I don't think that means we must embrace some unstable figure like Ron Paul. I've noticed that Christie has dramatically cut state spending in New Jersey but managed to preserve most of the assistance for the poor, the elderly and children. He has pissed off a lot of teachers though but they seem hopelessly addicted to the union wages and benefits they receive. Clearly the days of fat pensions and non-means-tested entitlements is coming to an end. One huge step forward might be to means test for medicaid and social security and I'll bet those are the first two major reforms to entitlements that we see. My thinking there is, if I've become wealthy by retirement age why should the goverment pay for my medical care using other people's tax money? If I've become wealthy by retirement age why should I receive social security? It makes sense to require some income qualification for those two programs and I've read that simply implementing that change would render both of those programs viable for our children and grandchildren if not in perpetuity.
I did read your entire earlier post, but I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. You seem pretty conservative on most matters, so I have trouble imagining how you feel Obama is preferable to any of the current republican candidates. It sounds like you feel he has demonstrated some degree of responsibilty, but freed of the need to run for reelection, I fear he would begin to cater to the hard left fringe. To me, he is far more dangerous than Paul or anyone else.Whatever else Ron Paul is, he is a patriotic american who will put this country's interests first. So will Perry, Bachmann and Romney. With Obama, I don't have that same confidence. He is likely to gravitate to the same kind of dopey revolutionary romanticism that seemed to motivate him to undermine Mubarak and khaddafi. I also have to disagree about SS and medicare, at least for people who are close to getting them. They paid into the system their entire lives and now, because we have a leftwing president who managed to spend us into financial oblivion in two years, you want to break the promises we made? I agree that something has to be done with these programs on a long-range basis, but I am far from sure means-testing is the way to go. That transforms them from insurance to welfare.