Ron Paul for 2012 GOP?

If that were completely true then McCain would never have been forced on us by the RNC. But then again, he didn't buck the party out of any kind of honor, he just did it for his own gain. That doesn't mean I disagree with you beyond that though. Neither party gives a flying fig about the country, they want the power, and will get it "by any means necessary".

How's that "fighty, losey with dignity" thing workin' out for ya...lol? I think McCain's lost his dignity along with his mind of late. He's not the same person he used to be. He's turned into a bitter old man. Annie

McCain wasn't really forced on anyone. He was a patsy. He was SUPPOSED to lose. John Kerry and Bob Dole were the same way. Nobody thought either of them had a chance of winning because they were up against strong incumbents. In 2008 though, it was a year that was just chalked up as a loss even before the race started because it wasn't Republican verse Democrat, it was Democrat versus Bush. Everything the democrats did was an attack on Bush with McCain tacked on as "McSame", "McBush", "More of the same" and all that other crap. The last thing they wanted was for labels like that to go on a candidate that they WANTED to win an election. They didn't want a potential winner, they just wanted someone who could put up a fight and lose with dignity.

He adds pork to bills? Any examples or links or something? That is something I would sure like to see for myself. Also, I'm a 9/11 truther. I think it is physically impossible for the size of plane they said crashed into the pentagon to make the size and shape of hole/damage it did, with leaving no wing fragments. They had a really good movie on it at netflix. Just that piece is enough to make me question the other stuff too. Dang. I went looking for it and I got sucked into a different movie about 9/11 -.- Plus I come by it honestly. My grandfather faught in world war 2, and was saying we had knowledge of the attack on Pearl harbor before it happened, BEFORE History channel started saying that we did. :3

http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AgCDFI5OhzYwgHO3uhghQLebvZx4?p=ron+paul's+pork+spending&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-701 Paul's Pork.. here's a veritable sausage grinder full of links. Pick Your Poison.

He adds 'pork' because he thinks that is a more transparent and better way of doling out federal money, even though he doesn't support the spending. Stopping earmarks doesn't address the spending problem, it only gives the executive branch more money to play with. I don't see anything inconsistent about Paul's porking. I think Truthers are attracted to Paul because of his honesty, consistent support for transparency, and that's not a bad thing. You can't control who your supporters are.

I'm sorry, but government regulations are sometimes necessary to protect people. Of course, we need to pick and choose what companies to buy from and what products to use and buy but the average person can't always learn about what kinds of practices the various companies use. I really don't like the guy at all. He's not opposed to business owners being allowed to discriminate against people due to race, he didn't believe BP should be "vilified" and he doesn't seem to care one bit about the safety of workers such as the miners in his own state. It seems to me that business owners are the only ones he cares about. It's sure not the average working person or family. Annie

Considering all the safety violations some mining companies have been caught with over and over again, I sure wouldn't count them as owners who care about their workers, would you? I'm not for over-regulating anything but reasonable oversight and regulation is necessary to protect the innocent. To Rand Paul apparently anything goes. Annie

Parents and kids disagree on politics all the time. My mom is a liberal. I am a libertarian. My dad is an independent (he independently thinks both sides suck LOL). My sister is a big time republican party creature. People have asked Ron and Rand about the things they differ on and they have said they have "agreed to disagree" on somethings. Rand is not bad. I know you don't like his stance of "free enterprise". But actually it is not a free for all for corporations. He wants the american consumer to step up and take responsibility for it instead of government. He wants the average american to know about the companies they are buying products from. Than police those companies with their own dollars. Meaning buying from companies they like...don't buy from the companies they don't. That would police the market without government involvement. It puts control in the hands of the average citizen instead of the government. That is his own primis of what he believes...more power in the hands of the average citizens..less in the government. It is a lot harder to "buy off" the general population with lobbyists than it is to buy off our elected officials. So you would have less corruption. Don't like a companies business practices or products...don't buy from them. They either change how they operate or their products to stay viable...or go out of business. No bail outs. I don't see what is so horrible about that. But I can see how some people would not like that. They would not want to take the time to learn about the practices of the companies they buy from. They want the government to do it for them. The corporations like it that way too. Makes it much easier for them to get away with stupid BS.

The ironic thing about that is, he is in line to head the financial services committee.. which means he will be taking part in regulating the very Federal Reserve he despises.

He is a "libertarian" Republican. He has been against a lot of the Republicans stances on tons of issues but is known for being against the Federal Reserve which who could be for that thing to begin with.

Parated--- I personally think that is a good thing. We NEED more transparency in the Federal Reserve and I don't know anyone who would have a better shot at doing it.