[Iwo Jima]

By the way, Ron Paul? Substantive discussions?

Speaking of substantive discussions, what is your opinion of these views held by Ron Paul and addressed during his recent Seattle appearance? From the article:

He would radically downsize the federal government. "I don't think there is any need for the Department of Education, the Department of Energy or particularly the monstrous Department of Homeland Security," he said Tuesday. Asked what role he sees for the federal government in education, Paul replied: "None. Nothing in the Constitution provides for a federal role."

Paul would seek to divest the federal government of its vast landholdings in the West. "I would always move in the direction of moving those lands to the states, except in special circumstances such as national parks."

I totally agree with those positions. Do you? I know of no other candidate who would take such positions and especially go to liberal enclaves like Seattle to voice them. Do you?

While I do not at this point support Ron Paul for president, I am glad that he is in the presidential race so that views such as these can get public exposure.

[mnehring]

What does that have to do with Ron’s stance on the WOT and international policy- everyone’s primary difference with him?

We aren’t arguing about the 75% we agree with Paul on, we are arguing about the 25% of things we disagree with him, that many of us think are the most vital issues of the next election.

[Jim Robinson]

Reid, Clinton, Schumer, Pelosi, Murtha, Wexler, et al, are all antiwar moonbats. Cowards and traitors who refuse to defend the nation when under attack by a foreign enemy. Sadly, Ron Paul is becoming the same. I view them all as the enemy within.