He said at the PBS debate that he has changed his position and is in opposition to the Death Penalty, based on the 100+ people that have been exonerated after the fact.

He said on Saturday that he isn't interested in attacking welfare programs. He is interested in bringing troops home from the 130 countries they are in, and closing the 700+ bases we are operating around the world, saving us hundreds of billions of dollars.

It is a lot easier to help the poor people in our own country when we aren't spending a trillion dollars a year on weapons to blow up poor people in other countries, or selling weapons to poor people so that they can kill other poor people who also use our weapons.

He would stop the policy of embarrassing ourselves by sending aid to and supporting Military Dictatorships like the current Martial Law mess in Pakistan, a country that gets 10 Billion in aid from the US. Talk about "spreading democracy", seems more like the essence of "entangled alliance" to me. He would also work to prevent other, less publicized "democracy spreading" embarrassments, like the current situation in Georgia. You know, stop playing games and address the REAL reasons why "they" hate us.

But by all means, keep slamming one of the only candidates who isn't dancing around the issue of ending the Iraq war, and never has, even voting against "regime change" as official policy in 1998, stopping the aggression towards Iran, bringing back the policy of an evenhanded approach when dealing with Israel, bringing troops home from places like South Korea, where a lot of people say their presence does nothing but stand in the way of any sort of unification, and saving us hundreds of billions of dollars that can spent at home by what is obviously going to be a Democractic congress.

He has stated that he doesn't want to throw anyone out in the street. Hundreds of billions of dollars in money saved from stopping our overseas meddling can be used domestically to support the people that rely on the system. All that he stated since the start of his campaign regarding social programs is that he wants to offer a way for people to opt out, while still supporting the people that have become dependent on them, but we have to stop the spending overseas, because WE CAN'T AFFORD IT.

And that doesn't even get into how he would battle the "big, evil, corporations" or doing things such as repealing garbage like the Partiot Act and the MCA 2006 (which NONE of the other candidates are talking about). His wacky gold standard ideas and things like competing currencies have been getting praise from people I am not going to mention because they will be personally attacked somehow (of course), but hard money makes it difficult for the military industrial complex to get money to go to war, and makes it harder for the fat cats to play games with it. Politicians would have to actually raise taxes on the people and expose the huge hidden costs that "lowering interest rates", or printing fresh dollars to spend on the tools of murder and mayhem, cover up. None of the big corporations or lobbyists own him. He would stop things like subsidizing big oil and other real world examples of fascism, where the costs are public but the profits are private.

Read the list and find yourself a pigeon hole.

Ending subsidies to big oil and big agriculture are two things he has mentioned, and ending the ban on hemp farming in the US, seeing as how hemp is a better source of ethanol than corn, is another thing he has mentioned.

But our foreign policy orbits heavily around oil. Gotta change the foreign policy. How can any candidate seriously discuss the environment, and oil, when over a million people have died in the past 5 years fighting for it?

Someone has already mentioned personal property rights.

You sure are good at bashing Ron Paul through baseless characterizations, like falsely characterizing him as a Christian Fundamentalist. If Paul is waiting for the rapture, then maybe you can tell me why he isn't getting any support from the likes of Christians United for Israel, Pat Hagge, Pat Robertson, or any of the other other fake Christian warmongers? You know, the real antisemitic psychos who secretly wish for the destruction of Israel while waving its flag on US soil. Perhaps it is because Paul doesn't support US backed Israeli militarism, or the billions of dollars of Made in the USA weapons we send them, that these organizations aren't backing him? Perhaps the fact that Paul is not an Israel-first politician turns off bloodthirsty psychos like Hagge and his shrinking flock of starry eyed evangelicals?

If you'd like, we can hold the mirror up to the Democratic leadership on ideas regarding the "rapture", how about Pelosi? Pelosi is helping bring the rapture MUCH faster than Ron Paul ever has. Who was it that scrubbed the Iran language from that bill again? The language that would have prevented BushCo from hitting Iran without congressional approval? Oh, that's right, Pelosi scrubbed it after she got butthurt when AIPAC boo'd her for trying to fulfill the mandate that made her Speaker.