Are you going to vote for Ron Paul for president 2008?

List some of the reason why please. Good work Ron Paul supporters.....continue to get the word out as there are still way too many naive and/or complacent people. I'd say "forget 'em" if it weren't for the fact that the aware people will suffer along beside them if they don't discover the truth and do something about it. Join the Ron Paul Revolution Now before it's too late. Wake up people ! ! !

Public Comments

1. Is he still running..Seriously...
2. That's right, I'm voting for him. He actually cares about this country, Unlike about 99% of the politicians out there.
3. Ron Paul, um we'll have to see about that as time goes on. I find him to be to far-left of the middle. People who don't understand the threat we face, see the actions of the Bush admin. to be a bit harsh on our rights. This is untrue, conservative care more about the Constitution than democrats by far. To say other wise is ignorant to the facts.
4. No but i think that Rudy should make him the White House Jester.
5. OBAMA!!!!
6. When I vote for Ron Paul for president is the day hell will freeze over, and god will pass his holy judgment. Sorry to say I find this question quite ludicrous.
7. When he runs as an Independant He has my vote for sure !! This is the one man that has new vision tempered by the core of the Constitution centered around the values of the Forefathers and in tune with a real world -- not the "fantasyland" that most American politicians are envisioning !!! And to an earlier responder here Rudy IS the CURRENT White House's Jester !!
8. Good Lord no, but thanks for asking.
9. No. As for why 1. He is a liar - claiming the Federal Reserve System is privately owned when it is run by a board appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate, subject to review and control by congress, and returns all net revenues to Treasury. 2. He is a hypocrite - arguing for smaller government while leading congress in earmarks this year. 3. He opposed the UN program to eradicate small pox - a program that successfully eliminated a disease that killed thousands every year. 4. He wants to deregulate ID controls in the finance industry - yes he actually claims that your identity is less likely to be stolen if banks do not need to make you prove who you are to use your account. 5. He wants to isolate America from multilateral treaties and organisations that will be leading the way to solving global problems in an increasingly global world. 6. He is devoid of any form of compassion - blaming the poor for being poor and advocating regressive taxation and reduced government services.
10. yes i am , i like his platform of smaller government , privatizing social security , bringing home all our solders not just in Iraq and Afghanistan, going back on the gold standard. making medication easier for us citizens to get. privatizing health care. and i can just keep going. and he has a true positive view for America and his supporters reflect that unlike the supporters for the other candidates as reflected here lol.
11. Old "Cut and Run" from killing terrorists ? LIKE HELL !
12. NO!
13. Ron Paul Runing 4 Presidentcy HE CAN WALK IF HE WANTS 2 INSTEAD OF RUNING
14. I am definitely voting for Ron Paul. There are two many reasons to name why but they are listed in his platform.
15. Yes I am voting for Ron Paul.. -He has never voted to raise taxes. -He has never voted for an unbalanced budget. -He has never voted to raise congressional pay. -He has never taken a government-paid junket. -He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch. -He voted against the Patriot Act. -He voted against the Iraq war. -He is against amnesty for illegal immigrants -He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program. -He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year. source: www.ronpaul2008.com EDIT: To SageandScholar 1) I have done my research on your claim, and have found that it is arguable, especially considering that one of the links you provided in another question, STATED that it is a quasi-governmental/quasi-private banking system. www.federalreserveeducation.org/fed101_html/structure/tour As for the system itself.. Without any assets backing our money and the ability to "create money out of thin air" there is NO WAY to limit the government's ambitions. With the ability to just create debt they have an unlimited credit card that can be treated as never having to pay the balance. One of the factors that make giving the states the rights/responsibilities instead of the Fed, is that states can't just print money. So states have to live on a budget or tax and the citizens see the direct result of government programs. Why do we build everything outside the U.S. nowadays? Because we have no incentive, we can just print and export more dollars. If we couldn't do that, and had a limited amount of funds, we would HAVE TO BUILD/EXPORT in order to get our money back, so we could spend it again………….. I can elaborate more on this, but I will wait for your response.. like I said, it is arguable.. and he's been in Congress long enough to know how the system works... 2) Earmarks are spending money that was already budgeted in. Earmarks don't affect spending levels. Pork does. Earmarking is more transparent, effective, accountable, and representative of his constituents' interests than letting Washington bureaucrats decide where to send his constituents' tax dollars. *note his voting record, he votes against every bill that he places earmarks on. And he was hardly the leader, was he? CNN called the offices of 435 members of the House to ask whether they would make their lists public. Only 50 members' offices provided a list; of the others, 68 declined, 311 did not respond and six said they had no earmark requests. Use the menus below to find out what your representative said. The same article said that Obama was the first candidate to release them, but that's not true. Here's a statement from his office: A spokesman says, "Reducing earmarks does not reduce government spending, and it does not prohibit spending upon those things that are earmarked." And he does this to attempt to return some portion of his constituents taxes back to them in the form of government programs. 3)"A controversy over vaccines, specifically the smallpox vaccine, is brewing in Washington. The administration is considering ordering mass inoculations for more than one million military personnel and civilian medical workers, ostensibly to thwart a smallpox outbreak before it occurs. Yet dangerous side-effects from the vaccine – ranging from mild flu symptoms to gangrene, encephalitis, and even death – cause many to question the wisdom and need for such inoculations. As a medical doctor, I believe mandated smallpox vaccines are bad medicine. The available vaccine poses significant risks, even though the more serious complications affect only a statistically small number of people. As with any medical treatment, these risks must always be balanced against the perceived benefit. Remember, not a single case of smallpox has been reported, despite the near-hysteria that characterized recent news reports. Even if some individuals became infected, smallpox spreads only with very close contact. Those in the surrounding community could then decide to accept vaccines based on a much more tangible risk. As a legislator, I believe mandated smallpox vaccines are very bad policy. The point is not that smallpox vaccines are necessarily a bad idea, but rather that intimately personal medical decisions should not be made by government. The real issue is individual medical choice. No single person, including the President of the United States, should ever be given the power to make a medical decision for potentially millions of Americans. Freedom over one’s physical person is the most basic freedom of all, and people in a free society should be sovereign over their own bodies. When we give government the power to make medical decisions for us, we in essence accept that the state owns our bodies. The possibility that the federal government could order vaccines is real. Provisions buried in the 500-page homeland security bill give federal health bureaucrats virtually unchecked power to declare health emergencies. Specifically, it gives the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services – in my view one of the worst of all federal agencies – power to declare actual or potential bioterrorist emergencies; to administer forced "countermeasures," including vaccines, to individuals or whole groups; and to extend the emergency declaration indefinitely. These provisions mirror those found in the Model Emergency Health Powers Act, a troubling proposal that was rejected by most state legislatures last year. That Act would have given state governors broad powers to suspend civil liberties and declare health emergencies. Yet now we’re giving virtually the same power to the Secretary of HHS. Equally troubling is the immunity from civil suit granted to vaccine manufacturers in the homeland security bill, which potentially could leave individuals who get sick from a bad batch of vaccines without legal recourse. Politics and medicine don’t mix. It is simply not the business of government at any level to decide whether you choose to accept a smallpox vaccine or any other medical treatment. Yet decades of federal intervention in health care, including the impact of third-party HMOs created by federal legislation, have weakened the doctor-patient relationship. A free market system would allow doctors and patients to make their own decisions about smallpox inoculations, without the federal government hoarding, mandating, nor prohibiting the vaccine. Instead, we’re moving quickly toward the day when government controls not only what vaccines patients receive, but what kind of health care they receive at all." --- From Ron Paul himself.. 4) Give me a source......... ? 5) As for our withdrawal from some select global organizations.. First of all you don't need NATO and the UN to network and communicate... NATO, is "managed trade" not free trade. Managed trade limits the freedom of the markets. The UN is a weak world government, and no where in the constitution does it provide for the federal government to cede our national soverignty to a den of third world despots and crooks. If the Reign of Koffi Annon taught us anything, is that world government will be just a corrupt as national governments, state governemnts and local governments. The founding fathers specifically warned us about foriegn entanglements, and the UN is the biggest foriegn entanglement that I can imagine... And don't forget that Reagan ended the cold war by calling Gorbachev up DIRECTLY and talking to him.. "In an era of a Globalized Economy why is it important to give away so much of our own purchasing power? It seems to me that the world would be better served without a welfare check and with free trade and free market capitalism. I believe that the path to world peace relies on everyone working together not everyone looking for a government handout together. Besides why should our government borrow money on top of our national debt to give away to other countries? Their job is to provide for Americans not the rest of the World?" 6) Where are you getting your information from, when did he blame the poor for being poor???????? Are you refering to welfare? if so "Senator Robert Kennedy, for example, often spoke out on how the welfare system trapped people in a cycle of poverty and broke up families. Without a 'man of the house,' families were eligible for more assistance, so men and women who stayed together had an incentive to split up. "Welfare "destroyed self-respect and subjected the poor to a 'prying' middle-class welfare bureaucracy," Kennedy said. "Unlike the traditional "top down from Washington" big government approach of the War on Poverty, RFK favored a "bottom-up from community" approach to creating jobs in poor communities. " Regressive taxing? I'd like to point out that the year 2000 spending is equal to today's federal income MINUS the income tax. That means we could go back to year 2000 spending levels AND cut the income tax and still be OK. But really, if we cut needless departments, stop funding an empire, and allow the next generations to opt out of the welfare state, we will have the constitutionally sized government needed to survive on low taxes.
16. Yes, of course! Make no mistake about that! Ron Paul for president.
18. Yes, I am voting for Ron Paul for President. Here's why: 1. Unrestricted gun rights - This is the backbone of freedom in my opinion. 2. Securing our border - if we have no border then we have no country. 3. Revise our foreign policy - we're in the same situation as the the Roman Empire was in that our military is spread too thin throughout the world. There's no reason for us to have troops in 130 other countries. 4. Balanced Budget and Equal Trade - we're going broke and the Chinese are the one's buying our country. The candidate that embodies these qualities the best is Ron Paul. These are the issues that are important to me, I'm well aware that other people have different priorities and will vote accordingly. To sageandscholar - I will attempt to respond, although jessicaisbeautiful and ThomasS have already done so in brilliant fashion: 1. ThomasS already answered this one much better than I could. 2. According to Citizens Against Goverment Waste, Ron Paul is rated at 95% for the year 2006 and 82% lifetime in voting against wasteful spending. By comparison, Hillary Clinton comes in at 14% for the 109th Congress while earning a 10% lifetime score. - Along with continually earning grades of A by the National Taxpayers Union, this would suggest that he's not a hypocrite and actually a fiscal conservative. To date, you have not provided any proof to the contrary. Besides, like jessicaisbeautiful said, earmarks are money that's already in the budget. If you faild to represent the best interests of your constituents, then you will not be re-elected. 3. I wouldn't go along with ANYTHING the U.N. wants to do. It's the most corrupt organization in the history of the world and is more and more becoming the spring board to a one-world-dictatorship. If the U.N. was saying their goal was to try to eradicate small pox, I have no doubts that there was an alterior motive, but I'd have to read their proposal for myself. Link? 4. I know he's opposed to the REAL ID, which was a tool of Nazi Germany, so opposing it is a good thing for freedom. Again, I would need to read this for myself. Do you have a link? 5. He doesn't want to isolate America. He doesn't want the rest of the world to be involved in our business the same that he doesn't believe it's right for us to be involved in everyone else's business. If the Chinese government were trying to tell Americans how to live the same way our government seems to tell other countries how to live, what would your reaction be? Again, this takes me to the corrupt U.N. and it leading the world towards a one-world-dictatorship. 6. He doesn't blame the poor for being poor and he's not going to gut social services. In fact he has stated that if we, as a country, would stop spending so much overseas in terms of wars and unbalanced trade that we would be better able to help the citizens of this country.
19. YES!!! 1. Because I'm sick of the lip-service politicians of both parties. 2. Because Ron Paul is the only one who understands the real situation of the economy. 3. Because Ron Paul is the only one who will trim the government down to a smaller size. 4. Because Ron Paul is the only one who promises to bring the troops immediately. 5. Because Ron Paul is the only one who respects the constitution and has voted consistently according to the constitutional principles. 6. Because Ron Paul is the only one who is honest and consistent, and has a voting record to prove it. 7. Because Ron Paul is the only one who is a libertarian and a true conservative Republican. The other Republicans are neocons. 8. He is the only one who will encourge the move to the gold standard. Edit: by the way, to sageandscholar: The Fed is a private banking organization, but the Fed board of governers are appointed by the President of the US. So, it creates the illusion is that it is public. It is not. It doesn't even share detailed minutes of it's meetings to the Congress. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_reserve
20. I really like him, Hunter, and Tancredo. I sure can't top some of the answers here! I want whoever will get us out of the new world order disaster!
21. I will vote for Ron Paul. I'm in agreement with his other supporters here. In the interest of also providing a more brief answer, I'll weigh in. I hate politics. I think that it is corrupt by nature. I believe that Ron Paul is the only serious candidate likely to reduce the burden of politics on my life.
22. of course! why shouldn't I? Some great answers on here. Glad to see others do their research - unlike SageandScholar who "claims" that the Fed is controlled by Congress, thus a federal institute. That is not even a basis for saying that it is Congress that is currently coining its own money just because they have a hand in selecting the board. It is proven that it is owned by private banks abroad. You need to go back to read about how the Fed started and research the role it has today (not through a brochure you pick up at a bank - LOL).
23. With a fiat money system such as ours, you will have perpetual war as well. Ron Paul 2008.