[Atlas Sneezed]

You know, I have another preferred presidential candidate, and don’t think Paul would make a good President. But the more you statist nut-jobs smear him, the more seriously I consider him

I’d happily vote Paul over Rudy and Hillary, and the added spite over you folks would be enhance the pleasure.

Keep it up.

[DoughtyOne]

I wouldn’t trust Ron Paul ten minutes with our military.

I’m not comfortable with him and our border security either.

He opens himself up to threads like this. And that’s a shame. I once thought the guy was a lot more viable than I do today. On some things he’s brilliant. On others you want to find the nearest butterfly net.

[Theodore R.]

It could be true that attacks on Paul endear him to his backers. The same was said in 1884 of Grover Cleveland: “We love him for the enemies he has made.” Many of the Paul people are staunchly anti-GWB.

[Niteranger68]

But the more you statist nut-jobs smear him, the more seriously I consider him

That says more about you than it does about us.

[T.Smith]

I’ll second that!

[DejaJude]

You know, I have another preferred presidential candidate, and don’t think Paul would make a good President. But the more you statist nut-jobs smear him, the more seriously I consider him

You would vote for someone just because people make fun of him? In that case... Fred is a wus, and Duncan is a dweeb. How do you feel about them now?

[jrooney]

"You know, I have another preferred presidential candidat,"

Dennis Kucinich?

[Allegra]

But the more you statist nut-jobs...

Just curious...is "statist" the new word for those of us who don't drink the Ron Paul Kool-Aid? I know it used to be "neocon," and was wondering if there has been an official switch.

I like to stay up on the cutting edge vernacular.

Thanks.

[ModelBreaker]

You know, I have another preferred presidential candidate, and don’t think Paul would make a good President. But the more you statist nut-jobs smear him, the more seriously I consider him. I’d happily vote Paul over Rudy and Hillary, and the added spite over you folks would be enhance the pleasure.

I like his constitutionalism domestically. But his blinders make him utterly unable to see that you don't have a constitutional republic if you don't defend it. America is blessed with two oceans on either side. We have always conducted forward defense (at least since 1812). That means, for example, WWII was fought elsewhere. Paul is ready to toss that wisdom aside. That makes me question his judgment on EVERYTHING.

He's not presidential material in the least. As between him and a dem, it's a tossup.

* The dem is more likely to fight the WOT than is he--most of the dems just want the power to order the troops around. They have no intention of actually disengaging from the world--that's just red meat for Kos. Paul does.

* OTOH, Paul wouldn't run roughshod over the Constitution as would any dem.

But we have to win the WOT or there's no constitution to come home to. So I'd say dem and then hope we can repair the damage done by them at home after we win the WOT. It would be by far the most dreadful presidential choice in my (rather long) memory--and there have been some bad ones.

[svcw]

But the more you statist nut-jobs smear him, the more seriously I consider him

added spite over you folks would be enhance the pleasure

Wow, way mature. Vote for a cut and run monkey just to make people mad.

Just talk to the hand.

[RockinRight]

I have three words for you:

Sense. Of. Humor.

I highly recommend you get one.

[Bogtrotter52]

“..the more seriously I consider him...”

Write his name in then. It will be like flushing your vote down the toilet, but you will feel good for a short while.

[fish hawk]

I don’t think any one here actually cares if you vote for Ron or not. Some people like fruit cake but most of us do not.