That makes perfect sense btw, all the neonazi racists are endorsing him because they KNOW as soon as he gets in office he is going to make sure EVERY state government burns a cross on every black man's lawn. in fact he will go out of his way to make an amendment in the federal government just to make sure this happens. i heard he also will make amendments forcing women into prostitution, giving pimps food stamps, and flying the swastika over the white house.
Anything is possible: http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.african.american/msg/c8668bd3662b0fa5
What does it matter that his platform may attract that kind of support? I have yet to see a piece that legitimately questions his stance on issues, they articles more of make fun of his stances and call him a kook. But they question why those type of people flock to him and try to make it look like Paul solicits their support. They support him because he offers them freedoms they deserve, and freedoms all Americans should want.
GTech you are very, very misinformed if you consider "anything possible" with regards to Ron Paul's polices. idk man maybe you never even looked into his actual history (besides his appearance on the alex jones show ofcourse). maybe you should do that..
I honestly would like to hear a long, well researched response to some of his issues. We can argue his supporters all day, but smatts9, you bring up a good point when you say that most people dismiss his beliefs as garbage without ever giving an educated response. Just the other day on Digg, here's a quote of his and a response I saw. Ron Paul: "You can only do that if you change our ideas about what the role of government ought to be. If you think that government has to take care of us, from cradle to grave, and if you think our government should police the world and spend hundreds of billions of dollars on a foreign policy that we cannot manage, you can't get rid of the IRS. But if you want to lower taxes and stop causing all the inflation, then you have to change policy.†Digger: "Sorry but the the idea of phasing out the IRS makes him look out of touch with reality. The government is funded by taxes there will always be a need for some agency to administer the collection of taxes (as much as we hate taxes). At best he could rename the IRS. Why not work to phasing out rainy days too." Ever seen someone lose an argument before they open their mouth? Ron Paul essentially says that we need to change our views on taxes and government to change anything and even think about getting rid of the IRS, to which this winner argues "we can't get rid of the IRS how will we collect taxes!" This is the kind of fundamental misunderstanding of Paul's policy that leads so many to give him the kook label. It's not too hard to understand, if you are more educated in taxes and government spending. -The government gets about 40% of its annual budget from personal income taxes. -The government has some programs that are highly inefficient, and if anything, arguably cause more harm than good (War on Drugs, DHS, DoE, etc). Guess what? You can cut both and still even out! People always look at "should we spend more money on this?" but never do they ask if the programs they already have are effective. It's like a shady business where all sales are final; once we institute a program, it hardly ever gets eliminated. If we really want to fix our national debt, balance our annual budget, and not be China's bitch in the next decade or two, we need to find a way to spend less. Tax cuts are like a band-aid for a gunshot wound: they have good intentions, but they don't nearly address the scope or scale of the problem. This is an open call to anyone out there who disagrees with the policies of Ron Paul; if you think he's wrong, tell me and everyone else why. Ron reasons out his way of thought and his beliefs in extensive writings and long speeches freely accessible throughout the Internet. I've seen very few decent rebuttals to anything he talks about, but I've seen countless attacks on his character and his supporters. Ron calls on an extensive knowledge of history, and a deep understanding of economics, to back up so many of his arguments. I know there are a lot of smart people on DP, and posters well versed in both subjects. So let's see some serious intellectual arguments for once, not the garbage I could so easily get from flipping on the TV. It's this simple really: you either disagree with his message based on hard evidence, and don't think he's a good President, or you agree with his message, and think he would make a good President. Particularly after the last 8 years of leadership and the issues our country faces, I really can't respect anyone who isn't voting solely on the issues. So if you think he's got the issues wrong, give a serious rebuke to them. Otherwise, I hope to see you at the polls in the next month or two