Your post does exactly what the article says the Paulistas are doing, it accuses those of us who oppose Paul of opposing him because we’re in favor of big government and against the Constitution.
If that was all there was to Ron, I’d be all for him.
I oppose him because of his disastrously unrealistic view of our national security needs, and because of his association with Lew Rockwell and other people I despise.
Lay down with pigs, you get up dirty. Ron chose to roll around with Lew and other pigs for decades. Now you accuse those of us who point out the smell of pushing “guilt by association.”
Two more reasons I don’t support the guy.
1. He claims he will do things like abolish the IRS, which the president has no authority to do. This is a constitutionalist?
2. In an election against any mainstream Democrat, Ron would probably get <30% of the vote.
‘Your post does exactly what the article says the Paulistas are doing, it accuses those of us who oppose Paul of opposing him because we’re in favor of big government and against the Constitution.’
Yep.
The fact remains Ron Paul is a Republican in name only, and the only reason is money and exposure.
He learned being the Libertarian Candidate ‘publicly’ is a disaster in 1988, a complete and utter waste of time.
Its the cynical nature of his candidacy that should turn off anyone that claims to be a Libertarian. He’s using the GOP for money and exposure, because he knows being the LP candidate is futile.
That kind of ethically challenged ‘core’ is stunning.
“1. He claims he will do things like abolish the IRS, which the president has no authority to do. This is a constitutionalist?”
What branch of government does the IRS belong to?
Would you please point me to the place where Dr. Paul says he would unilaterally abolish the IRS?