Why don’t you just pick out one.
I suspect you know little of what you’re talking about.
Ron Paul does not vote for spending. He merely specifies where the money goes.
Earmarks are about who decides where the money is spent. Some would like Obama to make those decisions. Ron Paul believes that it’s Congress.
Do you have an actual argument? Or do you just hope that if you say “earmarks” enough, you won’t have to understand that Ron Paul Does Not Vote For Spending.
I've maintained before, and this thread is a good example, that a lot of people here are actually scared to death of freedom. Whatever else you can say about Ron Paul, he is always in the corner for freedom of the individual.
Few here ever speak against the reality of what he stands for. They simply call him names, the way liberals do when they speak about Rush and Sarah. They are not intelligent enough to have an actual conversation about the issues and policies that Paul supports.
Paul is by far the one who most wants to follow the constitution. All his positions revolve around that. He speaks what is truth to him simply and with integrity. He deserves respect. That is too tall an order for many freepers.
Whether or not Paul can win is really not important at this point, and as was proven last time, anybody can win. It certainly does not hurt the conservative cause for Paul to speak. There is no reason to shout him down at this point unless you are afraid someone might win who would actually govern from the constitution.
As I've said before, Sarah is my pick, all the way. But I think all this disrespect for Paul is a beacon of ignorance.