[hschliemann]

If Ron Paul could actually do everything he believes in, I’d probably take the bullet on the war on terror to get a radically smaller government, and vote for him. But, he can’t win the nomination, can’t win the general election, and couldn’t get the changes made that he would want to. And . . . he’s wrong on Iraq and the War on Terror . . . and many of his supporters are . . . well . . . they are not . . . well . . . ah . . . suffice it to say that an unusually large percentage of his supporters do not have balanced and informed views.?

LOL.Desperation!"I agree with Paul's ideas except the WOT but those others who support him are nit-wits."LOL.Yet another idiotic argument of how any of the other candidates can implement their policies,but not Ron Paul.He won't win the election,so I'm not going to vote for him.HAHAHA,You have really solid political principles.

[Greg F]

Well, I think that Hunter and Thompson are better candidates because the war on terror is the big issue right now, and because they would get as much done (and probably more) to limit the growth in government than would Ron Paul.