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

I agree with Paul on the Iraq war and his social liberty views. That's about it. Otherwise, he's just another libertarian coo-coo from my home state. These guys are fun to argue with at BBQs over a few beers, but I wouldn't want one as my president.

BTW, I admire Paul's courage and recognize that no other candidate understands the Constitution as well as him.

But I must say it looks like the guy and his followers are at least having more fun than the usual stuffy freeze-dried candidates.

I wouldn't vote for him either because his domestic policies are to try to return to, say, 1925. Still, he's interesting to watch.

If you don't get it, I wonder what the heck Dennis Kucinich will think if he looks up and sees it!

How much of the total was from stolen credit cards THIS time?

...If I had a choice between Ron Paul and Hillary Clinton, I think I'd vote for Paul (and hope that congressional inertia prevented him from dismantling government).

I'm very liberal and find his domestic economic agenda dangerous. But I'd trust him to be independent, tough, and with me when it came to the constitution and the balance of powers -- more so than Clinton and any from the GOP.

"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.

Don't both Paul and Tancredo have swell ratings from the racist John Birch Society? Isn't Paul anti-choice? These are serious issues.

I'm very liberal and find his domestic economic agenda dangerous. But I'd trust him to be independent, tough, and with me when it came to the constitution and the balance of powers -- more so than Clinton and any from the GOP.

This is exactly what the radio interview and Joshua Frank's article discusses. It isn't about left/right, there is a new synthesis forming, and it based on respect for Civil Liberties, following the Constitution, and being antiwar.

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

And read Joshua Frank's article:

Antiwar Left Should Look Beyond Democrats

The left wing of the antiwar movement has some very serious problems, mainly our inability to recognize that the antiwar sentiment in the United States is resonating far beyond the confines of the so-called "left."

We cannot step back and effectively analyze the failures of the antiwar movement without peering under the hood of John Kerry's campaign in 2004. In essence, I think the majority of the left made a huge mistake on this issue by not opposing the Democrats; the movement supported a pro-war position by not opposing Sen. Kerry, who promised to continue the occupation of Iraq. There was no pressure on Kerry to alter his position on the war. No bird-dogging protests along the campaign trail. No outrage over his flip-flopping-let's-send-more- troops-into-battle rhetoric. Silence during election season is complicity. So let's be loud.

Despite his good intentions, Dennis Kucinich also failed us four years ago as well by abandoning his antiwar platform in favor of Kerry's pro-war candidacy. There is little reason to believe ol' Dennis won't do the same thing again this year if Hillary is the nominee. It was party politics before issues. Kucinich, unfortunately, wasn't an activist but a pawn in the Democrat's game. And the antiwar movement, or at least those who supported his bid, felt the damaging tremors for months afterward. Kucinich has been running in Iowa for almost nine years and is barely pulling in 1% of the vote. So what's the point?

The backlash to the Iraq war in this country is much larger than Kucinich's fan club, yet there is no real visible "moving" movement on the ground to end it. In many ways this is our fault as we are not willing to reach out to antiwar folks across the lines. A movement will never move forward with archaic sectarian factions or unyielding adherence to entrenched political philosophies. We must overcome our unwillingness to collaborate and collectively organize.

...

Ending the war in Iraq will take substantial pressure from all sides of the political spectrum. From conservative veterans to radical peaceniks. Let's embrace this new reality. The antiwar movement is larger than the left, in fact so much so that we may be at the whim of a real grassroots resistance instead of at its forefront. And if that means bringing this ugly war to a screeching halt, I'm all for it.

...

http://www.antiwar.com/frank/?articleid=12047