I know. I even saw a comment that mentioned Paul as pro abortion because he stated, in-line with the Constitution (that everybody seems to comment on, but none seem to have read), these issues are to be decided by the states. Ron Paul is an OB/GYN physician that has delivered thousands-upon-thousands of babies and has refused to perform even one abortion.
If Roe v. Wade hadn't happened and this decision was left to the states, millions of babies would have been saved from abortion. But, due to the fact that so-called small government conservatives want to unconstitutionally keep this as a federal matter, millions of babies die yearly due to the gridlock. That's why the forefathers advocated almost everything being handled by sovereign states; it's easier to change things at a local level than at a federal level and we could have had this battle won decades ago, state-by-state as the Constitution mandates.
What perplexes me is that he is the most small-government, pro liberty politician in the nation and those on FreeRepublic and elsewhere on other pro-liberty sites ridicule this man and those who support him. I just don't get it. But the message is thriving. For the first time ever, college students - the future of our nation and politics - are accepting and embracing a pro-liberty, non socialist, political ideology and there is now hope that, when all of these politicians and voters spawned from the liberal revolution of the 60's and 70's die off, our nation will return to the ideals of our founding fathers.
It's because they absolutely hate his moral equivalence arguments (we made them mad, we started it blah blah blah) against the wars. I hate it when he does that. He could make so many more or less good and valid arguments against our wars:
America's worst enemies are not hiding in caves in Afghanistan.
Yes, I remember a statement he made not too long ago, he said that in his entire medical career he never saw a single case in which an abortion was medically necessary.
What perplexes me is that he is the most small-government, pro liberty politician in the nation and those on FreeRepublic and elsewhere on other pro-liberty sites ridicule this man and those who support him.
I don't think this is a pro-liberty site... pro-conservative first, pro-republican second, and somewhat pro-economic freedom, but not the whole spectrum of pro-liberty. That's why I'm a libertarian and not a republican.
For the first time ever, college students - the future of our nation and politics - are accepting and embracing a pro-liberty, non socialist, political ideology and there is now hope that, when all of these politicians and voters spawned from the liberal revolution of the 60's and 70's die off, our nation will return to the ideals of our founding fathers.
That's what I enjoyed the most about Dr. Paul's 2008 primary campaign - seeing all the young people, as well as all the minorities, at his events.
2 candidates attracted large numbers of those 2 groups to their cause during the 2008 election cycle, osama and Ron Paul, and you know that at least the vast majority of osama's young supporters are completely disillusioned with him now.
On the other hand, I don't see how any of us Ron Paul supporters can change our minds about him, unless our core beliefs were to change as well - he supported the same policies and political platform since the 1950s - back when his positions were very much mainstream republican beliefs.
It's amazing how far to the left the GOP has moved since then.