"It's OK. My granny didn't need her Social Security check anyway...much."

What is this supposed to mean? Someone needs to do a little more reading. You act like a Paul presidency and Social Security are Mutually Exclusive when Paul has already said MANY MANY time on the campaign trail that they are not....

Excessive government spending has created the insolvency crisis in Social Security. We must significantly reduce spending so that our nation can keep its promise to our seniors.

That is from his website. It sounds like he really wants to take your Grandma's check, doesn't he? For those that don't get the quote, let me translate: "Significantly reduce spending" means "End the Empire and stop spending trillions to further entrench the Military Industrial Complex", or if you want a simpler translation, "Take the honey pot from the warmongers".

Paul has said that gutting the entitlement system isn't a high priority, whereas ending the overseas empire and bringing the troops and money (a trillion a year) home are. With the hundreds of billions of dollars we would save by changing our foreign policy we would have plenty of cash to spend on things like Social Security. He has said this many times in the past couple of months alone, pretty much every time he asked.

But I guess making shit up is more fun and less time consuming than paying attention to what Paul has said about social security.

In short: If you want to continue funding the entitlement programs, without the US going bankrupt, you have to cut spending. You can free up hundreds of billions of dollars by changing our foreign policy, i.e. bringing our troops home and dismantling the 800+ bases in 130 countries, as well as the various forms of "aid" we send to our Democracy loving friends in the War on Terror, like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Kuwait, and the rest of the Tin Pot Police States we prop up and support.

But you are wrong in that there really is only one massive issue, the Empire. The movement is much bigger than Ron Paul, and being antiwar isn't a left/right issue. Like Joshua Frank (a leftist) said recently in his interview with Scott Horton (a libertarian anarcho-capitalist), the Left would be wise to look past the part and embrace Ron Paul because he is contributing SIGNIFICANTLY to the antiwar movement. They also discuss Ron Paul's plans for social security, and Horton makes sure to explain things for people on the left who are worries about their entitlements and abortion. Everyone on both sides should listen to it, because Horton and Frank are on opposite sides of the spectrum but being antiwar is not reserved for one side or another.

http://www.scotthortonshow.com/2007/12/13/antiwar-radio-joshua-frank-3/

It all comes down to whether or not We the People want a change in our foreign policy. Everything else is bullshit, e.g. The Environment, the establishment wants to "carbon" tax us for eating hamburgers and farting, and asks us to make sacrifices, while the US military puts out more greenhouse gases than entire countries. They want to tax to fix Social Security, but still spend a trillion overseas maintaining the empire. We the People need to "sacrifice" while the Military Industrial Complex rakes in billions upon billions of corporate welfare tax payer money to continue the murder and mayhem. The whole thing is a joke.

Go away.