<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/20/conservatives.meeting/index.html?eref=igoogle_cnn" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/20/conservatives.meeting/index.html?eref=igoogle_cnn</a> <BR> <BR>too bad it doesn't mean much - but always good to see him get some play

RON PAUL 2012

It may be a "surprise" to CNN, but it's no surprise to me, he is the guy I wanted last time, and the guy I'll likely back if he runs again. <BR> <BR> His views on taxes alone are enough for me to give him the nod.

wes i thought you were a liberal?

Don't pigeonhole me :-) <BR> <BR>I am for gay marriage, so evidently that position on a single issue makes me a "liberal" in the minds of those on this board. As I've said many times, I feel that "marriage" should be a religious ceremony - the state should be out of the marriage business and have civil unions for all (of course, shy of that, civil rights should be accorded equally in the meantime so if "marriage" is what the state offers, gay couples should get it too). <BR> <BR>Much to my surprise, I once actually heard a politician agree with me! <BR><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGaBAb_oS84" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGaBAb_oS84</a> <BR> <BR>Paul is pretty libertarian and I like his views on a lot of things.

I am not for gay marriage, but for most other issues I am pretty much libertarian. I voted libertarian last time. Fiscal Conservative, Social Moderate.

I'm not sure why gay marriage came up (I'm against it) but I don't have the right to tell anybody what to do. I want to be left alone therefore i have to leave people alone. Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The government cant be allowed to chose winners and losers.

It came up because you labeled me a "liberal." The only "liberal" stance I can recall posting on ww has to do with what is typically seen as "socially liberal" support for gay marriage, so I assumed this is what prompted you to label me as such (par for the course around here). <BR> <BR>I also think it's interesting to note R.Paul's take on it, given how people sometimes mistake him for a "conservative."

Wes I owe you an apology I thought you posted something on a different thread. Sorry.

No worries. I don't think "liberal" and "conservative" are insults (although they are used that way at times). I think the people that lean far to the same side on every single issue are in the minority.

George Johnson/Ron Paul in 2012.... Look up George!

no suprises here. I voted for him last time, instead of voting for the "lesser of two evils". at least I have no "guilt" over my last vote like the previous election.

I woulda voted for Paul last time round but nc was deemed so close that I figured it was the same as voting for Obama. That is th ONLY reason I voted for old man winter.

I did the same as Train and for the same reason. Picking the lesser of two evils isn't a choice, in my opinion. I wrote in Ron Paul.

+1 for writing in and not picking the lesser of two evils

I hope all you guys that voted for Paul did so in the primary...

if I am not mistaken Ron Paul was not listed on the primary in california. I don't remember entirely. besides, I am registered as an indy so I could not vote in the primaries anyways. lame.

no party affiliation here either

Fox News' typical idiocracy <BR> <BR><a href="http://poetv.com/video.php?vid=75348" target="_blank">http://poetv.com/video.php?vid=75348</a>

Lol Fox is sure doing a lot of explaining away for something that, according them, doesn't mean very much. ;)

<i>No worries. I don't think "liberal" and "conservative" are insult</i> <BR> <BR>How could it be? Nobody here knows what either one means. <BR> <BR>Something like the following may cause many WW politico's heads to explode... <BR><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism</a> <BR><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism</a> <BR><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_liberalism" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_liberalism</a> <BR> <BR>The language has been hijacked to the extent that people can't even communicate their beliefs. Boil things down to two arbitrary teams and people will join a team and repeat the mantra. As long as we're distracted by vague references to misunderstood paradigms the Rep's and Dem's can carry on raping us together. <BR> <BR>Why would someone think that a liberal minded person couldn't support a libertarian? Think about word roots. Language is an powerful thing. <BR> <BR>Orwell warned us about this

Wow! Really Nate? I couldn't disagree with those supposed definitions more, maybe that is the problem. Liberal in the term of politics was meant to stand for a liberal use of government, not " limited government and liberty of individuals"...lol.

I am speaking from today's political parties.

Yeah Skubz I guess that's my point. It has a diferent meaning here than it does for the rest of the world, as well as what it had here in the past. <BR> <BR>Hijacked language. Rush taught the country to hate a word that means freedom. You can't impose Christian-centric policy if people believe in real liberty. <BR> <BR>But without rules, where would we be? <BR> <BR>Anyway, the point was hijacked language....not picking a team.

Great posts, Nate. <BR> <BR>Would love to see Ron Paul the Republican nominee. Might be my first ever vote for a Republican!

"Would love to see Ron Paul the Republican nominee. Might be my first ever vote for a Republican!" <BR> <BR>never happen. thanks to the media, they choose who we get to vote for. Ron Paul is too logical a choice. the next election will have Obama running against either a woman (Palin) or a gay conservative man. whatever sells stories, right?

I would vote for Ron Paul, but IMO he could never get the votes to win an election, he is to soft on National Defense to win an election.