I'm surprised that the Ron Paul zealots haven't shown up here to defend him. They do google searches for his name and then bombard blogs ala the Don Imus nuts who were here a few weeks ago.

Ask your girl (guy?) Jossip.

Why? we think that Rep. Paul defended himself quite nicely.

If you guys haven't figured out he is the ONLY man in DC that can't be bought and that a few hundred out of $26 million is going to change the way he votes, you haven't done any homework on Ron Paul at all.

Ron Paul vs. The Philosophically Bankrupt

After reading the name-calling and other non sequiturs from the anti-Ron Paul crowd, I am of the view that their hostility arises less from his opposition to war, or the direction American foreign policy has taken for decades, or any of the other specific programs he has criticized. What troubles them the most is that Paul has a philosophically-principled integrity in what he advocates and that, to challenge him, one must be prepared to deal with him at that higher level.

But modern political discourse long ago gave up on principles, in favor of the pursuit of power as a sufficient end. There is an intellectual bankruptcy exhibited by writers and speakers on the political "left," "right," or "middle." Competing ideas and values that once engaged the minds of thoughtful men and women have given way to little more than pronouncements on behalf of narrowly-defined political programs; the validity of a proposition no longer depends upon reasoned analysis, but upon the outcome of public opinion polls.

Ron Paul's campaign interjects an energized, principled inquiry into the political realm, an undertaking for which men and women with no philosophic center or rigorous minds find themselves woefully ill-prepared.

Neocon Neil Tries To Smear Ron Paul - But Cavuto, apostle of war and monetary destruction, doesn't get away with it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcLSLGXypMY

Looks like you're running the plays directly from the "The Official Media Guide to Attacking Ron Paul"

http://www.libertymaven.com/20.....-ron-paul/

He's one of the few candidates I respected up to this point. Obviously, there's no way candidates are going to represent the interests of all the people they receive donations from. When you're aware of the hateful views of your donors, the moral thing to do is return it or donate it to a cause that promotes anti-racism groups. I wouldn't really expect anything from some of the other candidates, but now he's joined the legion of self-righteous hypocrites that run our country.

Oh, I have done my homework. It stopped when I learned he's pro-life. I am staunchly pro-choice so Ron Paul would never in a million years get a vote from me. I could care less about his other views or how fiercely those who support him try to convince me how great he is.

Next.

I don't get how the IRS and taxes are slashed to nil and yet the USPS remains intact. Maybe he's explained that, or revised it since he appeared on the Colbert Report many months ago. I decided not to pay attention to him after that.

He is also for abolishing the National Parks Service and privatizing our parks and national monuments. Can you imagine this:

'Yosemite National Park brought to you by Disney'

Yea, me neither.

More like Disney-McDonald's Wonderland Park.

I heard on Air America last night that under a libertarian president aid to Africa and other 3rd world areas would completely stop - but not to the benefit of Americans (ie more funding for our social programs). All funding for social programs would be stopped pretty much. At least that's the way I understood it. It makes me wonder if the people who support him also support the government not helping the poor and sick? I guess so.

Their position is to rely on charity.

That would never work. Prior to the New Deal's social programs, charity alone wasn't helping the poor, sick and old so why would it work now? Libertairians would also rely on the private sector. Again, not a solution that I find ideal.

Well, when you say "work," who are you talking about and in what capacity would it work for them. The vast majority of people would be screwed. I don't know if it's that they want to believe that people are great or that they're money grubbing bastards. Ron Paul doesn't have it like that so does that leave the former?

Say that again? I think something got lost in translation up there.