Michigan Republican Primary: VOTE FOR RON PAUL ! ! !

[lit joe]

Never won one state' never will. He's like that crazy old uncle you keep at the bottom of the state.

[vetalalumni]

...

Ron Paul walks the walk. How has that hurt him? While your candidates keep printing money and telling us the economy is turning around and Social Security recipients received no cost of living increases for three years because the government said there was none, Ron Paul put his money where his mouth was. In the last ten years, gold has increased 5x in value as measured in dollars or the dollar buys only one-fifth as much gold. Take your pick. Had the government bought gold with its social security taxes instead of paying for wars and Wall Street bailouts, Social Security recipients could potentially be receiving five times as much as they are and enjoyed some of the prosperity Ron Paul has chosen.

Inflation is when the government or Fed inflates the money supply so that more dollars are chasing roughly the same amount of goods and services resulting in higher prices which we call inflation. This is supply/demand 101. Big government types prefer fiat currency such as our Federal Reserve notes backed by nothing because the fiat money system allows politicians to buy votes with a hidden inflation tax. I realize the difficulty you would have financing unpopular wars and plumping up Wall Street if you couldn't print money. Self discipline is such a drag.

semi related and edited to add: Ron Paul returned over $148,000 of his congressional budget to the Treasury. Senator Rand Paul turned over $500, of his Senate office budget back to the Treasury. Ron Paul left the campaign trail to vote against SOPA in the House and Sen. Rand Paul said that he intends to filibuster PIPA in the Senate. Your revered former Senator Dodd is leading the charge for SOPA/PIPA. If it passes, say goodbye to this forum.

You are probably referring to the $500,000 Rand Paul Refund to the U.S. Treasury.

Sen. Rand Paul Refunds $500,000 of His Budget to U.S. Treasury
By Dave Bohon
Monday, 16 January 14:28

In a political culture based largely on hollow promises, it’s nice to know that there are some in Washington determined to follow through on their commitments. On January 12 U.S. Senator Rand Paul [[R-Ky.), who was elected in 2010 on his promise to do his part to reduce federal spending by shrinking big government, announced that his Senate office would return a whopping $500,000 to the U.S. Treasury — federal funds left over from his official operating budget.

The money represents around 16 percent of Paul’s Senate office’s official budget.

"I ran to stop the reckless spending,” said Paul at a press conference announcing the return. “And I ran to end the damaging process of elected officials acting as errand boys, competing to see who could bring back the biggest check and the most amount of pork.”

What make’s Paul’s actions so refreshing is that he was able to record the half-million-dollar federal savings while pursuing one of the most energetic [[albeit conservative) legislative agendas of any freshman U.S. Senator. Focusing on his promise of fiscal responsibility, the Kentucky Senator offered spending cut amendments to nearly every relevant bill that came across his desk, while still representing his own constituency’s needs — working, for example, to stop the Environmental Protection Agency’s assault on Kentucky’s crucial coal industry.

...

http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/pol...to-us-treasury

[maxx]

RE: GOod ol' Rand's pro-coal; bill
http://cleantechnica.com/2011/11/15/...own-by-senate/

"...Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican and Tea Party favorite, proposed a bill to kill the Cross State Air Pollution Rule that the EPA finalized in July. The EPA rule is designed to slash air pollution from coal-fired power plants east of the Rocky Mountains. It would reduce sulfur dioxide emissions by 73 percent by 2014, from 2005 levels. It would cut nitrogen oxide emissions by 54 percent by 2014.Source: Clean Technica [[http://s.tt/13OJl)..."

Aaah, Paul represents good old unregulated capitalism that allows each of us to say FU to anyone else as we pursue our own interests.

[oladub]

maxx, The President just redirected Canadian oil to China. Our coal is also being diverted to China thanks to our President's policies. With our potential oil and coal supplies headed to China, our jobs go with them. This is ok because Nancy Pelosi explained that unemployment checks create jobs. If you live in Michigan, most of your electricity is generated from coal. My suggestion is for you to stop using electricity or you will be complicit with still employed Kentucky miners. Also, stop buying stuff from China because, so far, their pollution control is not up to our own level and China's pollution gets caught up in the jet stream and dumped on us as a byproduct of a poorly written bill. I'm not particularly against that EPA bill but it shouldn't have been passed without some import taxes or other compensation for Americans who lose jobs because of it.

There were two other Rand Paul issues mentioned.
1) He returned $500,000 [[$16%) of his Senate office budget to the Treasury which is better than Obama did with the federal budget.
2) He plans to filibuster sopa/pipa so we can continue to have forums like this. Sen Reid [[D) is still planning to go forward with this censorship bill being pushed by former Senator Dodd [[D).

[rb336]

maxx, The President just redirected Canadian oil to China.

How so? by saying no to a pipeline that was headed not to American refineries but to a PORT? That oil wasn't coming here, period. And how would your idol feel about the "eminent domain" being handed over to the pipeline company, essentially allowing them to demand land at fire-sale prices?

Our coal is also being diverted to China thanks to our President's policies.

got back-up for that?

2) He plans to filibuster sopa/pipa so we can continue to have forums like this. Sen Reid [[D) is still planning to go forward with this censorship bill being pushed by former Senator Dodd [[D).

Last I heard, Obama was threatening to veto it, granted that was a while ago. regardless, it would have exactly ZERO impact here.

[lit joe]

And that crazy old man said SS was illegal.

[oladub]

rb336: How so? by saying no to a pipeline that was headed not to American refineries but to a PORT? That oil wasn't coming here, period. And how would your idol feel about the "eminent domain" being handed over to the pipeline company, essentially allowing them to demand land at fire-sale prices?

The Prime Minister of Canada had indicated that if Keystone was interfered with, he would entertain running a pipeline to the west cost to export oil elsewhere.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...-on-china.html

No one likes to be subjected to eminent domain. However, the Constitution requires that market prices be paid for land so used. The expressways and utilities you and i use all required eminent domain condemnation at some point.

got back-up for that?

Sure, I'm used to providing for Democrats. Obama hasn't passed Cap and trade yet but the EPA is accomplishing some of the same goals.

Obama's stated intent:
A) “Under my plan of a cap and trade system electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Businesses would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that cost onto consumers.” - Obama 1/17/2008

"If somebody wants to build a coal power plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.” -Obama 2008

The result of Obama's policies regarding coal:

" The Associated Press estimated that as many as 32 power plants mostly fueled with coal would be closed and 36 would be in danger of closing."

Coal keeps being excavated though even though coal plants aren't being built demand for coal is rapidly rising in Asia.

U.S. coal exports to China surged from 2009 to 2010, jumping from 387,000 tons [[January-September) to over 4 million tons the following year. Demand for US coking and steam coal also grew rapidly in Japan, India, and South Korea. Industry forecasters anticipate a “30-year super cycle in global coal markets.” U.S. companies hope to cash in on the market and dramatically increase coal exports, especially from the Powder River Basin [[PRB) of Wyoming and Montana through ports on the US west coast.
U.S. coal exports rose 49 percent during the first quarter of 2011 compared to the previous quarter, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...._coal_exports

Solution? Sell coal to China. This a good deal for China because reduced demand for coal means China can purchase it cheaper[[supply-demand) and it also allows China to further undercut US manufacturing costs.

Last I heard, Obama was threatening to veto it, granted that was a while ago. regardless, it would have exactly ZERO impact here.

I hope he does. He also recently promised to veto the legislation to allow indefinite detentions of US citizens without a trial but then he didn't. We'll see.

[lit joe]

Your gasoline is up 83% snice 2009 so good luck.

[rb336]

Ola, American mining interests sending coal to Asia is capitalism, not policy. You want what China has in terms of coal plants? fine. maybe you can live with choking clouds of smoke, dioxin and mercury laden fish, trees and agricultural lands poisoned by acid rain, etc., I don't want to. Don't think most Americans would want to.

As far as Keystone goes, like I said, that pipeline was running to a port, for the oil to be sent elsewhere -- including asia -- regardless. Let's see Canada build a pipeline over the Canadian Rockies. The trip through the US was a matter of expediency. The jobs cited for the creation of the pipeline are absurd in many ways - first, TransCanada says there will only be around 6000 temporary jobs for the construction, and a few hundred permanent jobs. Right now, Canadian oil is largely refined in the Midwest for US usage. after the pipeline, it will be either shipped as crude OR refined in free-trade zones along the coast -- for EXPORT.

Let's not forget that under Obama, the US reliance on foreign oil was under 50% for the first time in decades.

[oladub]

rb336; Ola, American mining interests sending coal to Asia is capitalism, not policy. You want what China has in terms of coal plants? fine. maybe you can live with choking clouds of smoke, dioxin and mercury laden fish, trees and agricultural lands poisoned by acid rain, etc., I don't want to. Don't think most Americans would want to.

It was both policy and capitalism. I don't want "what China has in terms of coal plants" and didn't imply that I did. My point was that since coal use is being discouraged in the US, more of it is being burned in China; a fact you wanted me to prove. The downside of the EPA policy then is that more coal will be burned where it will put even more pollution into the sky and make it more advantageous to manufacture things in China where there aren't as many pollution rules. Since the federal government controls international commerce, it is policy. If we had socialism instead of Capitalism, perhaps there wouldn't be as much coal to sell and mining conditions would be like China's.

As far as Keystone goes, like I said, that pipeline was running to a port, for the oil to be sent elsewhere -- including asia -- regardless. Let's see Canada build a pipeline over the Canadian Rockies. The trip through the US was a matter of expediency. The jobs cited for the creation of the pipeline are absurd in many ways - first, TransCanada says there will only be around 6000 temporary jobs for the construction, and a few hundred permanent jobs. Right now, Canadian oil is largely refined in the Midwest for US usage. after the pipeline, it will be either shipped as crude OR refined in free-trade zones along the coast -- for EXPORT.

Let's not forget that under Obama, the US reliance on foreign oil was under 50% for the first time in decades.

Canada is able to run a pipeline across the Rockies along existing rail lines or the highway to Prince Rupert for instance where there is already a port. If I were Canadian, it would be a good idea to diversify customer base so the US and China would bid each other up in price.

I'm not necessarily even for the Keystone Pipeline. I don't know why a refinery couldn't be built in MN or ND instead of hauling it to Texas but no one has offered that option. If some of the oil was destined for export, we won't have to bother with the 6,000 temporary and permanent US jobs if Canadians are willing to provide jobs for Canadians instead. We won't have to bother using the oil Canada sends to China either. There are always other places like Venezuela, Nigeria, and the Mid-east where oil can be scored. Also Chinese supertankers can run it from e.g. Prince Rupert to Los Angeles if Chinese authorities are so disposed. The Bush/Obama recession has probably reduced our fuel consumption thereby reducing consumption.

[rb336]

It was both policy and capitalism. I don't want "what China has in terms of coal plants" and didn't imply that I did. My point was that since coal use is being discouraged in the US, more of it is being burned in China; a fact you wanted me to prove.

nope, wanted you to prove that policy was sending our energy to china. Thing is, the policies to which you might refer are all related to keeping our air and water clean and our fish edible.

The fact is, there are around 400 MORE coal-fired power plants in the US today than there were 10 years ago, and 2010 was the largest build year for coal plants since 1985
[[http://www.netl.doe.gov/coal/refshelf/ncp.pdf pg 10)

Canada is able to run a pipeline across the Rockies along existing rail lines or the highway to Prince Rupert for instance where there is already a port. If I were Canadian, it would be a good idea to diversify customer base so the US and China would bid each other up in price.

I'm not necessarily even for the Keystone Pipeline. I don't know why a refinery couldn't be built in MN or ND instead of hauling it to Texas but no one has offered that option. If some of the oil was destined for export, we won't have to bother with the 6,000 temporary and permanent US jobs if Canadians are willing to provide jobs for Canadians instead

Have you been on the rail lines across the Canadian Rockies? some of them barely seem to have room for the train. There is a reason they want to cut through the US, and only part of it is that the route to PR cuts through a lot of protected land -- both environmentally and under Native American control. It would be a FAR shorter route. Ask yourself why they didn't just go that way to begin with. Prince Rupert is also not a foreign trade zone, at least not yet, and there is considerable resistance to making it one.

[oladub]

rb336: nope, wanted you to prove that policy was sending our energy to china. Thing is, the policies to which you might refer are all related to keeping our air and water clean and our fish edible.

The fact is, there are around 400 MORE coal-fired power plants in the US today than there were 10 years ago, and 2010 was the largest build year for coal plants since 1985
[[http://www.netl.doe.gov/coal/refshelf/ncp.pdf pg 10)

No, My point was not to "prove that policy was sending our energy to china". My point was that coal was being shipped to China in increasing amounts as US policy became more hostile to the use of coal. [[Probable) unintended consequences of a policy are not the same as policy intent. As I mentioned before, estimates are that 33-36 US coal plants will be taken offline due to recent EPA policies. What you asked for before was evidence that more coal was being shipped to China not whether any new coal plants were being built. I didn't see anything in your link equating the energy produced by a couple of new plants compared with energy production expected to be lost by the 33-36 old plants. The last panel noted that from 12/10-7/11 175MW of new coal energy capacity was being announced and 430MW had been cancelled. It, of course, did not speculate as to why 430MW had been cancelled. Figure 10, by the way, compares the minuscule number of US coal plant startups with the number of new Chinese startups.

Have you been on the rail lines across the Canadian Rockies? some of them barely seem to have room for the train. There is a reason they want to cut through the US, and only part of it is that the route to PR cuts through a lot of protected land -- both environmentally and under Native American control. It would be a FAR shorter route. Ask yourself why they didn't just go that way to begin with. Prince Rupert is also not a foreign trade zone, at least not yet, and there is considerable resistance to making it one.

Yes, I once took Canadian Pacific across Canada from the Soo to Vancouver. We went through the city of Banff. I don't think there is any need to run a line all the way across the southern Canadian Rockies though when Prince Rupert is so much closer and the E-W portion is much shorter and already accommodates the Canadian National and a highway. If they built a railroad through there, why do you suspect they are incapable of building a parallel pipeline. I suspects that Canada is capable and China has motive enough to pitch in, I suspect, to gain control of Canadian resources and deprive us of them.

A few years ago, I was following pipelines, oilfields , and utilities. Not to be too cynical but Native Americans often settled for jobs and cash when their sacred lands were violated with pipelines. I doubt that the 12,000 residents of Prince Rupert would be able to stop the Canada, China, and big money from doing what they want; even if the residents didn't want the jobs and opportunities. But that's speculation and British Columbia does prevent new hydroelectric projects.

[maxx]

re: tar sand oil

http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2011/07...pagewanted=all

"...Pipelines proposed to Canada's West Coast have run into challenges from First Nations leaders, in particular. More than 70 First Nations with aboriginal rights have spoken out against the project with concerns about oil spills and disruption of wildlife, with some pledging civil disobedience. Compared to Native Americans in the United States, First Nations in Canada can have significant influence over land-use decisions and blocking projects, Droitsch said. ..."

[rb336]

Thanks Maxx. I was looking for that article

[vetalalumni]

No, My point was not to "prove that policy was sending our energy to china". My point was that coal was being shipped to China in increasing amounts as US policy became more hostile to the use of coal. [[Probable) unintended consequences of a policy are not the same as policy intent. As I mentioned before, estimates are that 33-36 US coal plants will be taken offline due to recent EPA policies. What you asked for before was evidence that more coal was being shipped to China not whether any new coal plants were being built. I didn't see anything in your link equating the energy produced by a couple of new plants compared with energy production expected to be lost by the 33-36 old plants. The last panel noted that from 12/10-7/11 175MW of new coal energy capacity was being announced and 430MW had been cancelled. It, of course, did not speculate as to why 430MW had been cancelled. Figure 10, by the way, compares the minuscule number of US coal plant startups with the number of new Chinese startups.

Yes, I once took Canadian Pacific across Canada from the Soo to Vancouver. We went through the city of Banff. I don't think there is any need to run a line all the way across the southern Canadian Rockies though when Prince Rupert is so much closer and the E-W portion is much shorter and already accommodates the Canadian National and a highway. If they built a railroad through there, why do you suspect they are incapable of building a parallel pipeline. I suspects that Canada is capable and China has motive enough to pitch in, I suspect, to gain control of Canadian resources and deprive us of them.

A few years ago, I was following pipelines, oilfields , and utilities. Not to be too cynical but Native Americans often settled for jobs and cash when their sacred lands were violated with pipelines. I doubt that the 12,000 residents of Prince Rupert would be able to stop the Canada, China, and big money from doing what they want; even if the residents didn't want the jobs and opportunities. But that's speculation and British Columbia does prevent new hydroelectric projects.

From the Detroit Connections --> Paging Gazhekwe thread, here is a post [[#832) with some pertinent insight.

WASHINGTON – 2011 saw some new and old heroes alike emerge in Washington, D.C., rooting and pushing for tribal and Indian interests. Here we list some of the notables:

Debra White Plume: This Lakota activist spent many long days and nights in Washington this year thanks to the federal government’s wrangling on whether to allow the installation of an expanded Keystone XL Pipeline across her homelands. Arrested for peacefully protesting the plan at the White House in early September, she became increasingly comfortable explaining Native resistance in front of large crowds of protesters. “We have to stand up for Mother Earth. We have to stand up for our sacred water—for our children, our grandchildren, for the coming generations,” she told a large group via megaphone just before her arrest. Throughout, she became a go-to Native voice to explain the cultural, health, and sovereign impacts. As the year wore on, young and old Indians alike would ask her on Facebook for the latest updates from D.C., and she was more than happy to share. But she was also fond of going home, getting away from the crazy trenches of Washington, to remember firsthand why she continued the fight.

Robert Williams: Normally a respected Indian law professor based at the University of Arizona, Williams trekked to the nation’s capital in October on an important mission to protect the rights of six First Nations of British Columbia. The Lumbee tribal citizen presented evidence at a hearing before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of the Organization of American States that showed Canada has systematically ignored tribal land claims while permitting destruction of Indian lands through widespread clear-cutting that led to deforestation, pollution and possible climate change effects. He and his clients ultimately hope to achieve a huge precedential impact on indigenous rights to property. Until then, they wait for a report from the commission. “No one thinks these claims are going to be solved overnight,” he said at the time, “but we’re on the right path.”

Rep. Kristi Noem, R-S.D., emerged in June as a congressional anti-tribal union advocate. New to Congress this year, she introduced legislation in an effort, she said, to clarify that the National Labor Relations Board does not have jurisdiction over tribally owned businesses on reservation land as a matter of tribal sovereignty. “The legislation stands to defend tribal sovereignty and promote economic opportunities on reservations lands by eliminating ambiguity in existing federal law,” she said. These words were music to the ears of some tribal constituents who fear unions and their impacts on tribes, and they hoped to continue to hear the right things from the politician in the years to come.

Sen. Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii: Set to retire at the end of his term in January 2013, he has spent almost 40 years in political office supporting Native rights. He continued to do the same throughout 2011 as the chair of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, which held numerous hearings under his watch this year on long overdue matters of tribal sovereignty, culture, and business. In the coming year, he’s expected to make another push for Native Hawaiian federal recognition, which he’s been rooting on unsuccessfully since 2000.

Elouise Cobell: Ironically, this champion of the Hill for many Indians couldn’t make it to D.C. for the hearing in June that would ultimately see the overseeing court finally approve the $3.4 billion settlement she played a major role in brokering. Instead, she testified by phone, strongly as always: “One hundred twenty-four years of abuse of our trust is enough. Fifteen years of intense, difficult litigation is more than enough. Too many of us have died without justice. Any more delays will mean that still more will die without justice. Enough is enough.” In October, Cobell herself passed away due to cancer. By then, the settlement had been approved by President Barack Obama, Congress, and the courts. But appeals were and are still pending, so she never got to know for sure whether any Indians would receive payments as the result of her years of work in Washington.

Kimberly Craven: No matter how unpopular it makes her to those who simply want a quick check, she’s the Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate lady who continues to appeal the Cobell settlement. This class member doesn’t believe the settlement is right or fair, so she has kept up the battle. As reported by the Arizona Daily Star in September, “[h]er objection states, among other things, that anyone whose Individual Indian Money account was mishandled would receive less than those whose accounts were not mishandled, even though the first group suffered more financially.” Elouise Cobell was always admired for keeping up her fight for what she believed was right, and Craven is cut from the same cloth. Expect her to be a major force in Washington on this matter in the coming year.

Larry Echo Hawk: This head of Indian affairs at the Department of the Interior has appeared more and more willing to vocalize the unique sovereignty concerns of tribal nations within the context of working for the federal bureaucracy. Case in point: After announcing in November that the federal government is easing its rules for the approval of leases on lands it holds in trust for tribes and individuals, Echo Hawk publicly critiqued the fed’s previous errors: “In times past, a lot of federal laws and regulations have exhibited a paternalistic-like attitude from the federal government to First Nations leaders and communities,” he told Indian Country Today Media Network. Often, tribal and federal interests collide, which sometimes makes it easier for a federal Indian employee – even a top federal Indian employee – to just be quiet, not rock the boat. Get the paycheck, build the legacy, and then move on. But Echo Hawk has seemed quite willing to try to build an understanding within the federal government for tribal sovereignty. If that gets him in trouble, he appeared up for the risk this year. It was riskier behavior than we’ve seen from him in this role than in the past. Let’s hope it continues.

http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwor...#ixzz1hBuVvFzJ

To these, I would add:

Former Bay Mills President Jeffrey Parker. Under his leadership, Bay Mills Indian Community increased its land base, challenged restrictions on locating Indian casinos, established community supported footprints in Vanderbilt and Flint, worked with the state and Bay Mills Community College to sponsor charter schools statewide, worked to increase the tourism industry at Bay Mills. The Health Clinic grew, students continue to improve their achievements. More and more residents are completing higher education and they can return to help their community with the infrastructure that is being developed.

[lit joe]

John Wayne anyone here ever beenon a reservation. Try Martin S.D in the middle of rosebud & pineridge. A pipeline is and improvement not a eyesore. They have to move 10 or 12 scrap cars around each house. they don't worry about utility 75% don't have them. So bring it on.

[jerrytimes]

I will vote for whoever the Republicans have running against Obama, except Paul. He is a joke, and disgrace, and he is NOT a conservative or someone that I would want with the say so in defending the USA. If he wins, which he won't, I will vote for Obama. I cringe thinking that....

[Occurrence]

How is Ron Paul not a conservative?

[Whitehouse]

Interesting backdrop....

[oladub]

Politically, it is dumb as rocks to make a speech in front of a Confederate flag. Georgia, until 2001, and three other Southern states have reminders of the confederate flag in their state flags. A main point Paul made in that speech was that 11 other countries had gotten rid of their own slavery essentially by buying the slaves from slaveholders and setting them free thus averting costlier civil wars and things like Sherman's march to the sea in which property owners were not compensated as far as I know.

I took a picture of my wife in front of Daughters of the Confederacy statue in Moultrie, Georgia the discovery of which was kind of a surprise to me a Northerner. Now I have proof that she is a neo-confederate I guess.




I suppose the same logic could extend to every politician who stands in front of Israeli flags at an AIPAC fundraiser in NY City. There are similar photos of Republicans too. There may also be US flags on any of these stages but showing them would ruin the fun and innuendos.

[mjs]

With all the confliciting commercials and conflicting slanted media reporting, American voters need to fulfill their citizenship responsibilities by picking their candidates based on the summaries of the bills they have sponsored rather than vaugue soundbites they make for the cameras. Look at issue polls results and then look at legislation and ask yourself why if most the politicians claim to support what most of the people want, why so few of them vote for, let alone sponsor bills that could make it happen. Look below at the bills that Ron Paul has sponsored and decide how many of them you really oppose. If the corporate media thinks he has crazy ideas and you agree with the bills he has sponsored, what do you think the corporate media really thinks of your ideas? What makes you think the billionaire owners at Fox or NBC really have your best interests in mind?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_paul#Tenure_2

The fact that Paul's an outsider who's ideas don't fit well with other established Republicans is exactly why everyone, conservative, liberal, or independant, should take a short break from their busy TV watching schedule on Feb 28th and vote for him. Don't let the media talk you into staying home or voting for someone else you don't really want because they claim that Ron Paul can't win. That's want they want. You really think they could care less that there could be a President that isn't influenced by Fox's warchest or NBC Universal's warchest?

If you support Paul's ideas but think he can't win because Romney already has it in the bag, then make the effort to vote for Paul just to make Romney less smug and more willing to incorporate the views of moderates. If you think too many politicians are too hypocritical by saying one thing and voting another, then make them see that hurts their re-election chances by voting for the guy who's actions support his words. If you think the mainstream Republican party has been directed down the wrong path, then help Paul fulfill the third party role of putting new ideas into the party. This is our time to stand against politics as usual. Its our time to fight the good fight rather than call it a lost cause and play dead.

If we stand together to fight these big business, big government republicrats, we may suprise you and take back control of our government. If not, at least you know you stood up for your ideas.

[Whitehouse]

Only two points I agree with Paul.

A) Legalize pot
B) He's not a warmonger like the rest of the Neo-con candidates.

[mjs]

Name the top three you disagree and we'll see if his record supports the opposition.

[vetalalumni]

Politically, it is dumb as rocks to make a speech in front of a Confederate flag. Georgia, until 2001, and three other Southern states have reminders of the confederate flag in their state flags.

...

Here is video of this rare occassion in which Ron Paul was "... dumb as rocks to make a speech in front of a Confederate flag".

[oladub]

Only two points I agree with Paul.

A) Legalize pot
B) He's not a warmonger like the rest of the Neo-con candidates.

Technically, he wants each state to determine it's own marijuana policy as they already determine alcohol sales. Paul has stood up for California's law allowing medical marijuana and opposed Bush and Obama attempts to override it.

Unlike all the other candidates including Obama, Paul wants to end corporate subsidies and bailouts, repeal the Patriot Act, end the executions of Americans abroad, close Guantanamo, reduce government snooping on regular Americans, close the bankster owned Federal Reserve, end federal involvement in most matters of marriage and abortion regulation, and end the 'war on drugs', let Americans decide if they want to put raw milk or vitamins into their bodies, bring our troop home from the unconstitutional and undeclared wars as well as places like Europe, Japan, and Korea, allow cost cutting innovations and competition in medical delivery, and end the dictatorial mis-use of executive orders. He just took a day off the campaign trail to vote against SOPA if necessary. He also rallied against provisions in NDAA that allow Americans to be incarcerated for indefinite periods without a trial.

Surely, you would also approve of his support for some of the above things. If you voted in the states, you would have the choice of four warmongers and Ron Paul. The rest, including Obama, keep prodding Iran hoping such meddling won't start WWIII. Since you are from Holland you might have other considerations such as what happens if Paul pulled US troops from Europe and Europe had to defend itself. Also, Paul is against the Fed having bailed out European banks.

Whitehouse, edited to add this very semi-related story of a Dutch girl in conflict with the nanny state in Holland. It looks like she is bailing.-Schoolgirl sailor triumphs after battle with authorities