Total Posts:26|Showing Posts:1-26
Jump to topic:

Article - "Ron Paul Will Get The Nomination"

jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2011 10:29:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
http://murraysabrin.com...

Check it out. Solid points, not just naive optimism. I think the bottom line is that the guy's got a perfectly consistent record on just about everything and has proven to be incorruptible. By "the guy" I of course refer to Paul.
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2011 3:01:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'm bumping this. Want to see what everyone else thinks about the points this guy makes about each candidate and whether or not most voters will care about those things.
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2011 3:09:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I think that voters systematically make bad decisions. Paul is the ideal candidate on paper, but people (especially you there reading this - yes you - your name begins with an "R"?) are dumb
freedomsquared
Posts: 450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2011 3:46:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The problem is that a lot of politics is about image and Ron Paul, much like McCain, does not have the image or reputation that we expect from a president.
But it's Norway, sort of the Canada of Europe."
-innomen

http://www.debate.org...
-humorous debate with brian_eggleston

http://www.debate.org...
-tournament debate, need votes
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2011 4:44:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I don't listen to political analysts or straw polls, but I certainly hope that is the case.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2011 4:58:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/20/2011 3:09:47 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
I think that voters systematically make bad decisions. Paul is the ideal candidate on paper, but people (especially you there reading this - yes you - your name begins with an "R"?) are dumb

He certainly isn't ideal for my views. And my name doesn't start with an "R".
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2011 5:05:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/20/2011 4:58:46 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 7/20/2011 3:09:47 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
I think that voters systematically make bad decisions. Paul is the ideal candidate on paper, but people (especially you there reading this - yes you - your name begins with an "R"?) are dumb

He certainly isn't ideal for my views. And my name doesn't start with an "R".

Sorry, my comment was implicitly assuming that the reader was republican (pretty sure the link was addressed to republicans, dunno cba to check), so fascists were left out of my analysis. Also I know where you live Steve. =|
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2011 5:27:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/20/2011 5:05:11 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 7/20/2011 4:58:46 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 7/20/2011 3:09:47 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
I think that voters systematically make bad decisions. Paul is the ideal candidate on paper, but people (especially you there reading this - yes you - your name begins with an "R"?) are dumb

He certainly isn't ideal for my views. And my name doesn't start with an "R".

Sorry, my comment was implicitly assuming that the reader was republican (pretty sure the link was addressed to republicans, dunno cba to check), so fascists were left out of my analysis. Also I know where you live Steve. =|

lol, you have no idea where I live. You don't think I'd leave my real address anywhere on the internet do you? My facebook doesn't even have my real address.

Anyway, Ron Paul is not even best for Republicans in general. Maybe for true Conservatives, but not republicans as a blanket. You know darn well that he isn't best for the religious right.

I also find his putting ear marks in bills then voting against them, knowing that they'll pass anyway to be rather scummy (though all too common) politics. I use to have high respect for the guy, even though I completely disagreed with him on most issues, until I found that out.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2011 5:28:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Also, I plead the 5th about claims of me being a fascist. That title will always belong to Cody, our (now gone) AnCapFas
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2011 5:31:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Yep, all politicians suck. Some suck less then others. You will always a be a fascist to me.
I know where you live because I am connected to the matrix. I lie. I am the godamn matrix =|
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2011 5:38:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/20/2011 5:31:06 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
Yep, all politicians suck. Some suck less then others. You will always a be a fascist to me.
I know where you live because I am connected to the matrix. I lie. I am the godamn matrix =|

Are you the matrix? Or the matrix within the matrix that was created to allow all the children of zion to believe that they were fighting for their freedom, while all the while still being in the true matrix?

Because I'm an agent in the matrix that's within the matrix.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2011 5:46:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/20/2011 5:45:13 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
No. I'm an awesome matrix. Like the matrix in the films but with dragons and shizzle.

darn, I'm missing out. I'll see if I can transfer, but my suit and glasses might not fit with the theme.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2011 7:31:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/20/2011 5:27:30 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
I also find his putting ear marks in bills then voting against them, knowing that they'll pass anyway to be rather scummy (though all too common) politics. I use to have high respect for the guy, even though I completely disagreed with him on most issues, until I found that out.

So a life lived with honesty, personal integrity, and moral consistency, totally free of all the corruption that has become closely associated with so many politicians in modern politics, the most consistent voting record in Washington over multiple decades, and the now extremely rare courage to stand up for even the most unpopular of beliefs even in spite of incessant ridicule from both sides of the media, is not warranting of your "high respect"? Are we talking about the same guy who so often has been the sole "no" vote on bills that were not in line with the strict constitutionalist views that he's unwaveringly supported over 5 decades in politics? And who had the guts to get up on national TV and declare on a stage full of 10 other prominent politicians, on numerous occasions, that they were nearly all wrong about several issues, only to be met with laughter from politicians and pundits alike?

You can disagree with his views. You can try to deny the fact that almost all of his predictions, and - at the risk of making him sound a tad prophetic - his warnings to the country since he entered politics have all come true and are in the process of coming true. In this case, it's not the content that matters, it's not about agreement or disagreement. It's the overwhelming consistency with which this guy has lived his entire life, both personal and political, and the extent to which he has gone to tirelessly fight for his beliefs when 99% of politicians faced with the opposition that he faced would alter their views as at least some of the media saw fit, if not abandon them entirely. That much is undeniable. If you don't respect that, what and who do you respect? There is nobody in American politics today who is more deserving of your "high respect" than Ron Paul. How most thinking American citizens don't at last see that is incredulous to me and really gives me doubts about American society.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2011 8:46:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/20/2011 5:27:30 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
I also find his putting ear marks in bills then voting against them, knowing that they'll pass anyway to be rather scummy (though all too common) politics. I use to have high respect for the guy, even though I completely disagreed with him on most issues, until I found that out.

How at all is that scummy? The government takes money from his constituency, he can't help that, why would he not fight to get at least some of that money back for the people he represents?
He votes against the bills, but you can't expect him to volunteer away the hard earned money robbed from his district.
That's just common sense and the position you've taken on the issue is simply wrong, in the most black and white sense.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2011 8:51:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
If the robber threatens to take $5 from you, but you're given the chance to have $3 of it put into a birthday gift for you, it is perfectly reasonable to favor receiving the $3 back, but still oppose the robbery.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2011 9:56:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/20/2011 7:31:57 PM, jat93 wrote:
At 7/20/2011 5:27:30 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
I also find his putting ear marks in bills then voting against them, knowing that they'll pass anyway to be rather scummy (though all too common) politics. I use to have high respect for the guy, even though I completely disagreed with him on most issues, until I found that out.

So a life lived with honesty, personal integrity, and moral consistency, totally free of all the corruption that has become closely associated with so many politicians in modern politics, the most consistent voting record in Washington over multiple decades, and the now extremely rare courage to stand up for even the most unpopular of beliefs even in spite of incessant ridicule from both sides of the media, is not warranting of your "high respect"? Are we talking about the same guy who so often has been the sole "no" vote on bills that were not in line with the strict constitutionalist views that he's unwaveringly supported over 5 decades in politics? And who had the guts to get up on national TV and declare on a stage full of 10 other prominent politicians, on numerous occasions, that they were nearly all wrong about several issues, only to be met with laughter from politicians and pundits alike?

Ron Paul says he's against, but uses them anyway and votes against them (knowing that they'll pass). That is not integrity in my book.

It's not hard to be vote number 1 against something (because whether you vote for or against is meaningless on the outcome), or vote number 435 against something. What is hard is being vote 218 for or against something.


You can disagree with his views. You can try to deny the fact that almost all of his predictions, and - at the risk of making him sound a tad prophetic - his warnings to the country since he entered politics have all come true and are in the process of coming true. In this case, it's not the content that matters, it's not about agreement or disagreement. It's the overwhelming consistency with which this guy has lived his entire life, both personal and political, and the extent to which he has gone to tirelessly fight for his beliefs when 99% of politicians faced with the opposition that he faced would alter their views as at least some of the media saw fit, if not abandon them entirely. That much is undeniable. If you don't respect that, what and who do you respect? There is nobody in American politics today who is more deserving of your "high respect" than Ron Paul. How most thinking American citizens don't at last see that is incredulous to me and really gives me doubts about American society.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2011 8:39:07 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/20/2011 7:31:57 PM, jat93 wrote:
At 7/20/2011 5:27:30 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
I also find his putting ear marks in bills then voting against them, knowing that they'll pass anyway to be rather scummy (though all too common) politics. I use to have high respect for the guy, even though I completely disagreed with him on most issues, until I found that out.

So a life lived with honesty, personal integrity, and moral consistency, totally free of all the corruption that has become closely associated with so many politicians in modern politics, the most consistent voting record in Washington over multiple decades, and the now extremely rare courage to stand up for even the most unpopular of beliefs even in spite of incessant ridicule from both sides of the media, is not warranting of your "high respect"? Are we talking about the same guy who so often has been the sole "no" vote on bills that were not in line with the strict constitutionalist views that he's unwaveringly supported over 5 decades in politics? And who had the guts to get up on national TV and declare on a stage full of 10 other prominent politicians, on numerous occasions, that they were nearly all wrong about several issues, only to be met with laughter from politicians and pundits alike?

You can disagree with his views. You can try to deny the fact that almost all of his predictions, and - at the risk of making him sound a tad prophetic - his warnings to the country since he entered politics have all come true and are in the process of coming true. In this case, it's not the content that matters, it's not about agreement or disagreement. It's the overwhelming consistency with which this guy has lived his entire life, both personal and political, and the extent to which he has gone to tirelessly fight for his beliefs when 99% of politicians faced with the opposition that he faced would alter their views as at least some of the media saw fit, if not abandon them entirely. That much is undeniable. If you don't respect that, what and who do you respect? There is nobody in American politics today who is more deserving of your "high respect" than Ron Paul. How most thinking American citizens don't at last see that is incredulous to me and really gives me doubts about American society.

A candidate's stance on abortion is my litmus test, if they are not pro-life I won't even look at their stance on other issues. I refuse to endorse a candidate who is pro-abortion, so what happens when I look at his stance on abortion?? He claims to be pro-life and opposes giving the federal government the authority to make abortion legal. That sounds great, I'm with him on that, until I look further. Though he claims to be pro-life, he advocates for giving state and local governments the right to make it legal. Ultimately what is the difference, abortion is still legal by authority of government, so how is that a pro-life stance?? It seems to me that he is being deceptive, trying to sway voters from both sides of issue. Is that deserving of my respect?? No.
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2011 11:56:18 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/21/2011 8:39:07 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 7/20/2011 7:31:57 PM, jat93 wrote:
At 7/20/2011 5:27:30 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
I also find his putting ear marks in bills then voting against them, knowing that they'll pass anyway to be rather scummy (though all too common) politics. I use to have high respect for the guy, even though I completely disagreed with him on most issues, until I found that out.

So a life lived with honesty, personal integrity, and moral consistency, totally free of all the corruption that has become closely associated with so many politicians in modern politics, the most consistent voting record in Washington over multiple decades, and the now extremely rare courage to stand up for even the most unpopular of beliefs even in spite of incessant ridicule from both sides of the media, is not warranting of your "high respect"? Are we talking about the same guy who so often has been the sole "no" vote on bills that were not in line with the strict constitutionalist views that he's unwaveringly supported over 5 decades in politics? And who had the guts to get up on national TV and declare on a stage full of 10 other prominent politicians, on numerous occasions, that they were nearly all wrong about several issues, only to be met with laughter from politicians and pundits alike?

You can disagree with his views. You can try to deny the fact that almost all of his predictions, and - at the risk of making him sound a tad prophetic - his warnings to the country since he entered politics have all come true and are in the process of coming true. In this case, it's not the content that matters, it's not about agreement or disagreement. It's the overwhelming consistency with which this guy has lived his entire life, both personal and political, and the extent to which he has gone to tirelessly fight for his beliefs when 99% of politicians faced with the opposition that he faced would alter their views as at least some of the media saw fit, if not abandon them entirely. That much is undeniable. If you don't respect that, what and who do you respect? There is nobody in American politics today who is more deserving of your "high respect" than Ron Paul. How most thinking American citizens don't at last see that is incredulous to me and really gives me doubts about American society.

A candidate's stance on abortion is my litmus test, if they are not pro-life I won't even look at their stance on other issues. I refuse to endorse a candidate who is pro-abortion, so what happens when I look at his stance on abortion?? He claims to be pro-life and opposes giving the federal government the authority to make abortion legal. That sounds great, I'm with him on that, until I look further. Though he claims to be pro-life, he advocates for giving state and local governments the right to make it legal. Ultimately what is the difference, abortion is still legal by authority of government, so how is that a pro-life stance?? It seems to me that he is being deceptive, trying to sway voters from both sides of issue. Is that deserving of my respect?? No.

Read the Constitution, and maybe you'll understand his stance. He is personally opposed to abortion. He also realizes that his opinion shouldn't have to be impressed onto everyone else, and that the Constitution doesn't permit that to happen. Essentially you're saying that he would only be deserving of your respect if he felt like it was his job to force his opinion down everyone else's throats, regardless of what the Constitution permits regarding state's rights and all that. And the fact that one opinion could discredit everything I pointed out, which by the way were all actions not mere opinions.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2011 1:41:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/21/2011 11:56:18 AM, jat93 wrote:
At 7/21/2011 8:39:07 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 7/20/2011 7:31:57 PM, jat93 wrote:
At 7/20/2011 5:27:30 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
I also find his putting ear marks in bills then voting against them, knowing that they'll pass anyway to be rather scummy (though all too common) politics. I use to have high respect for the guy, even though I completely disagreed with him on most issues, until I found that out.

So a life lived with honesty, personal integrity, and moral consistency, totally free of all the corruption that has become closely associated with so many politicians in modern politics, the most consistent voting record in Washington over multiple decades, and the now extremely rare courage to stand up for even the most unpopular of beliefs even in spite of incessant ridicule from both sides of the media, is not warranting of your "high respect"? Are we talking about the same guy who so often has been the sole "no" vote on bills that were not in line with the strict constitutionalist views that he's unwaveringly supported over 5 decades in politics? And who had the guts to get up on national TV and declare on a stage full of 10 other prominent politicians, on numerous occasions, that they were nearly all wrong about several issues, only to be met with laughter from politicians and pundits alike?

You can disagree with his views. You can try to deny the fact that almost all of his predictions, and - at the risk of making him sound a tad prophetic - his warnings to the country since he entered politics have all come true and are in the process of coming true. In this case, it's not the content that matters, it's not about agreement or disagreement. It's the overwhelming consistency with which this guy has lived his entire life, both personal and political, and the extent to which he has gone to tirelessly fight for his beliefs when 99% of politicians faced with the opposition that he faced would alter their views as at least some of the media saw fit, if not abandon them entirely. That much is undeniable. If you don't respect that, what and who do you respect? There is nobody in American politics today who is more deserving of your "high respect" than Ron Paul. How most thinking American citizens don't at last see that is incredulous to me and really gives me doubts about American society.

A candidate's stance on abortion is my litmus test, if they are not pro-life I won't even look at their stance on other issues. I refuse to endorse a candidate who is pro-abortion, so what happens when I look at his stance on abortion?? He claims to be pro-life and opposes giving the federal government the authority to make abortion legal. That sounds great, I'm with him on that, until I look further. Though he claims to be pro-life, he advocates for giving state and local governments the right to make it legal. Ultimately what is the difference, abortion is still legal by authority of government, so how is that a pro-life stance?? It seems to me that he is being deceptive, trying to sway voters from both sides of issue. Is that deserving of my respect?? No.

Read the Constitution, and maybe you'll understand his stance. He is personally opposed to abortion. He also realizes that his opinion shouldn't have to be impressed onto everyone else, and that the Constitution doesn't permit that to happen. Essentially you're saying that he would only be deserving of your respect if he felt like it was his job to force his opinion down everyone else's throats, regardless of what the Constitution permits regarding state's rights and all that. And the fact that one opinion could discredit everything I pointed out, which by the way were all actions not mere opinions.

There is no logical difference between a state government and a federal government. Government is government. How can anyone feel that the federal government has no place to do something, but that it is okay for a state government to do so?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
gavin.ogden
Posts: 1,729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2011 9:57:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/21/2011 1:41:26 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 7/21/2011 11:56:18 AM, jat93 wrote:
At 7/21/2011 8:39:07 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 7/20/2011 7:31:57 PM, jat93 wrote:
At 7/20/2011 5:27:30 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
I also find his putting ear marks in bills then voting against them, knowing that they'll pass anyway to be rather scummy (though all too common) politics. I use to have high respect for the guy, even though I completely disagreed with him on most issues, until I found that out.

So a life lived with honesty, personal integrity, and moral consistency, totally free of all the corruption that has become closely associated with so many politicians in modern politics, the most consistent voting record in Washington over multiple decades, and the now extremely rare courage to stand up for even the most unpopular of beliefs even in spite of incessant ridicule from both sides of the media, is not warranting of your "high respect"? Are we talking about the same guy who so often has been the sole "no" vote on bills that were not in line with the strict constitutionalist views that he's unwaveringly supported over 5 decades in politics? And who had the guts to get up on national TV and declare on a stage full of 10 other prominent politicians, on numerous occasions, that they were nearly all wrong about several issues, only to be met with laughter from politicians and pundits alike?

You can disagree with his views. You can try to deny the fact that almost all of his predictions, and - at the risk of making him sound a tad prophetic - his warnings to the country since he entered politics have all come true and are in the process of coming true. In this case, it's not the content that matters, it's not about agreement or disagreement. It's the overwhelming consistency with which this guy has lived his entire life, both personal and political, and the extent to which he has gone to tirelessly fight for his beliefs when 99% of politicians faced with the opposition that he faced would alter their views as at least some of the media saw fit, if not abandon them entirely. That much is undeniable. If you don't respect that, what and who do you respect? There is nobody in American politics today who is more deserving of your "high respect" than Ron Paul. How most thinking American citizens don't at last see that is incredulous to me and really gives me doubts about American society.

A candidate's stance on abortion is my litmus test, if they are not pro-life I won't even look at their stance on other issues. I refuse to endorse a candidate who is pro-abortion, so what happens when I look at his stance on abortion?? He claims to be pro-life and opposes giving the federal government the authority to make abortion legal. That sounds great, I'm with him on that, until I look further. Though he claims to be pro-life, he advocates for giving state and local governments the right to make it legal. Ultimately what is the difference, abortion is still legal by authority of government, so how is that a pro-life stance?? It seems to me that he is being deceptive, trying to sway voters from both sides of issue. Is that deserving of my respect?? No.

Read the Constitution, and maybe you'll understand his stance. He is personally opposed to abortion. He also realizes that his opinion shouldn't have to be impressed onto everyone else, and that the Constitution doesn't permit that to happen. Essentially you're saying that he would only be deserving of your respect if he felt like it was his job to force his opinion down everyone else's throats, regardless of what the Constitution permits regarding state's rights and all that. And the fact that one opinion could discredit everything I pointed out, which by the way were all actions not mere opinions.

There is no logical difference between a state government and a federal government. Government is government. How can anyone feel that the federal government has no place to do something, but that it is okay for a state government to do so?

The constitution. If you don't like your state's laws, you may move to another. This gives the states incentive to give the people what they want. The less citizens you have, the less revenue you bring in. This competition would force states to give their citizens what they want. If the federal government enacts laws the people despise, they must migrate to a new country. See the difference? Why do you think so many migrate here in the first place? In conclusion, states should be competing for more residents, but as the U.S. becomes a police state as a whole, our freedom as citizens dwindles.
Libertaire
Posts: 6
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2011 9:41:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/21/2011 8:39:07 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 7/20/2011 7:31:57 PM, jat93 wrote:
At 7/20/2011 5:27:30 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
I also find his putting ear marks in bills then voting against them, knowing that they'll pass anyway to be rather scummy (though all too common) politics. I use to have high respect for the guy, even though I completely disagreed with him on most issues, until I found that out.

So a life lived with honesty, personal integrity, and moral consistency, totally free of all the corruption that has become closely associated with so many politicians in modern politics, the most consistent voting record in Washington over multiple decades, and the now extremely rare courage to stand up for even the most unpopular of beliefs even in spite of incessant ridicule from both sides of the media, is not warranting of your "high respect"? Are we talking about the same guy who so often has been the sole "no" vote on bills that were not in line with the strict constitutionalist views that he's unwaveringly supported over 5 decades in politics? And who had the guts to get up on national TV and declare on a stage full of 10 other prominent politicians, on numerous occasions, that they were nearly all wrong about several issues, only to be met with laughter from politicians and pundits alike?

You can disagree with his views. You can try to deny the fact that almost all of his predictions, and - at the risk of making him sound a tad prophetic - his warnings to the country since he entered politics have all come true and are in the process of coming true. In this case, it's not the content that matters, it's not about agreement or disagreement. It's the overwhelming consistency with which this guy has lived his entire life, both personal and political, and the extent to which he has gone to tirelessly fight for his beliefs when 99% of politicians faced with the opposition that he faced would alter their views as at least some of the media saw fit, if not abandon them entirely. That much is undeniable. If you don't respect that, what and who do you respect? There is nobody in American politics today who is more deserving of your "high respect" than Ron Paul. How most thinking American citizens don't at last see that is incredulous to me and really gives me doubts about American society.

A candidate's stance on abortion is my litmus test, if they are not pro-life I won't even look at their stance on other issues. I refuse to endorse a candidate who is pro-abortion, so what happens when I look at his stance on abortion?? He claims to be pro-life and opposes giving the federal government the authority to make abortion legal. That sounds great, I'm with him on that, until I look further. Though he claims to be pro-life, he advocates for giving state and local governments the right to make it legal. Ultimately what is the difference, abortion is still legal by authority of government, so how is that a pro-life stance?? It seems to me that he is being deceptive, trying to sway voters from both sides of issue. Is that deserving of my respect?? No.

Ron Paul has a pro-life stance because he is personally against pro-life. However he is an incredibly strict constitutionalist.He realizes upon reflection of the constitution that the subject of whether abortion is legal or illegal should be decided by the states and not the government. This does not change his personal stance on the morality of abortion. He is firmly pro-life though.

So even though he would rather no one have an abortion, he realizes it is not his call. If it were up to him, every state would outlaw abortion, however this obviously would never happen.

He's not trying to be deceptive I don't think. His stance is perfectly consistent compared to the rest of his libertarian views. He makes public policy decisions based on the Constitution and not on his own subjective moral views(doing the opposite is a flaw found in most Republicans and a majority of Democrats). I'd say he's the most consistent and least deceptive politician in the country at this point.