reply to post by AgentSimms
There's a difference between a politician and a statemen, and Ron Paul has been consistent in damned near everything he says - aside from moving away
from the 'open borders' view of mainstream libertarianism - for decades. You can check out his record, writings, and videos over the last 30 years
- Ron Paul now is Ron Paul then.
And even if some find his opinions or solutions misguided - usually due to lack of complete review of what Ron Paul says as well as misunderstanding
of the root cause and effects of those issues themselves - there is no valid reason to doubt his sincerity, as is usually somewhat easy to tell when
reviewing a candidate's history. Ron Paul has never taken a politically popular view in his tenure, other than when his views were finally
recognized as valid back in 2007 or so - and he's STILL shouldered aside by the republican orthodoxy and majority of the party.
To the posters who said Ron Paul supporters treat him just like Obama supporters treated Obama before the last election are incorrect - Ron Paul
supporters treat Ron Paul the way we treated RON PAUL before the last election - and had more people done the same and motivated to support him then,
we'd likely be must less in debt today as well as more free and safe. With Ron Paul, for the majority of us at least, it's not the man - it's the
message, and the simple fact that he's got the right one in a whole package.
I'll be honest, if I got the same level of consistency, integrity, and right-thinking as I do with Ron Paul from a younger more 'viable' candidate
(likely to be voted for by the majority of old guard republicans, so more likely to win nomination), I would be supporting them. But I don't have
that option - I've got a lot of people who've made big mistakes for claiming to understand and defend the constitution, people who continue to need
government control and prohibitions, and who wouldn't understand or attempt necessary action to resolve large and pressing issues. And when I've
already got this guy here, who called the issues before they even became apparent to most other political leaders (as well as how to address
them)...why would I not trust his judgement and affinity for speaking truth to power?
To those comparing Paul to Obama as an example of how Paul would handle being in office - no. Just no. Before the election, I was warning people
about Obama's changing stances, backing off promises, and crocodile smiles toward change and the constitution. Paul has already admitted he would
have to work with congress, but Paul would be Paul and that's consistent and pointing one direction - time and politial expediency haven't even
shifted his views. It's possible he might not accomplish a lot, but that would be the fault of congress continuing to oppose the more-apparent will
of their constituents.
There's just not really any comparison to Ron Paul and the politicians we've grown used to, and with good reason - Ron Paul is not a politician.
He's a statemen that actually works to represent the will and needs of the people, and was a doctor delivering babies and offering discounted
services instead of accepting taxpayer funded benefits when he wasn't in an office that he took because he was concerned about what he saw happening
- and he pushes for us to do the same thing.
I don't see anyone else out there who holds a candle, and that's just that.
- Paul is concerned about and addresses these same matters, and is a big part why he wants
to get the federal government out of everything other than what the constitution allots to them - which is a pretty big trim, and returns a lot of
power to us as well as trims down the federal funding and militarization of local/state police forces currently receiving a lot of federal funds and
collaboration. 
