You have no idea who the Democrat and Republican voters are. Democrats, although not historically, are socialist-protectionists.

Recently a majority of Republicans have big doubts about free trade, and that doubt has already surpassed the 50% mark. Republicans are historically protectionists.

I see you are a Ron Paul supporter. Ron Paul will never win an election with an attitude like that. Ron Paul is obviously running on a skeleton crew of Libertarians. Libertarians never won big in the 3rd party arena. The last 2 big 3rd parties was the Green Party (Socialist-protectionist) and Ross Perot (fair-trader).

Calling the American worker lazy, incompetent, and obsolete will never get the Democrat vote.

Calling the American worker lazy, incompetent, and obsolete will never get the Republican vote.

It should be noted for anyone considering voting for Ron Paul, that this is the way Libertarians think.

Libertarians are also open-borders anarchists, in addition to being free-trade anarchists.

The only thing a Democrat Congress and a Libertarian President will accomplish is the legalization of marijuana. If that is what you want the next presidency to be all about, then vote Ron Paul.

Well if the choice is a toke or WWIII then ill take a hit.

__________________

Half of the Americans will be unemployed. That will start a Civil War. That is, if a Libertarian President could bypass a Democrat (protectionist) Congress.

Duncan Hunters plan to leave Iraq is to displace American divisions with Iraqi divisions. That is not like Bush's plan which is to stay there indefinately. I'm an isolationist by the way, but not an irrational one like Ron Paul. You have to consider what is politically doable and what is not politically doable. For example; how would Ron Paul and a Democrat congress leave Europe?

Geez...
Ron Pauls chances seem to be growing... More and more people talk about him.

From my point of view, Ron Paul doesn't wanna do much...
It seems all he wants to do is cut the biggest subsidization in earths history and transfer as much power as possible away from the federal government to the states and the congress.

With subsidization I mean that currently the US government is borrowing about 1600$ Dollar a year for every US citizen (Workers, children, elderly) in order to pump it into a industry that does not benefit even 1% of the US Population!

Military spending goes up and up and up, while procurement is going down... programs are cut and the US military is becoming outdated....

How come that the man is called crazy for being the only one who point the finger at the single biggest threat for EVERY american that if it hits, would effect the US and the World for decades? The Collapse of the Consumer-Spending bubble...

There are not somehow different common sense rules when it comes to the Governmets borrowing and spending money...
Even "Deficit Spending" is about borrowing money for short term investments that improve Infrastructure and modernize the ecconomy. The result would be an increased effience and growth of the ecconomy which would make it easy to pay back the borrowed money.

In Germany we have a huge deficit too, but that's definatly because we adopted/annexed a country with a wracked ecconomy and devestated infrastructure AND the fact that we have a huge & universal healthcare/social welfare system.

And even considering that it will take even another 10-20 years to get East Germany on the same level as the west, I would be angry and amuesed about a politician who said that the defecit is no problem.

So why is Ron Paul crazy to put the attention of the fact that the US is heading into bankrupcy?

[I mean, wasn't it the plan to win the Cold war by forcing the Soviets into bankrupcy through increased military spending? So why shouldn't the same happen to the US since the US didn't stop that policy at all and even extended it? BTW: Russia/Soviet Union has 0$ Debt now...]

__________________

Well, even if he gives the Order to Leave Iraq immediatly, it won't be like a chaotic reatreat like after the Eastern Front Collapesed in WW2...

There will be a several month long moving troops out... brigade for brigade... perhaps 6-12 month...
I mean it is not Unrealistic to say get out... the US Gov simply decided to get in for no reason at all... but even that took several months to mass up the troops and then it took several month to dig in...
So it will take several months to dig out... Iraqies might take over the Bases one after another.
And at least there is a reason to get out... cost of live and money is outweighing the usefullness...

Nothing unrealistic there. Ron Paul just doesn't want to be a War President, because there is NO kind of War going on that would require the US to spend that much. It's not a Soviet Invasion of the Arabian Peninsula for gods sake...

BTW: Isolationism is stupid, Non-Interventionism & No Nationbuilding is what Ron Paul stands for... GIGANTIC difference. And for everything else, he wants that congress decides... that means, it is bizarre to believe that the US would allow a new Hitler to overrun the world, just because dictator Paul says the US should not intervene... Oh my, the US is a democracy, and not an elected Tyrany! If the people demand a certain action, their representatives should push for it and the President has to follow the will of the people.

__________________

The last American isolationist movement (which wasn't too cowardly and politically correct to identify themselves as isolationist) was the America First Committee. 2 days after Pearl Harbor was bombed, they voluntarily disbandoned. They were dignified and didn't throw a hissy fit. Now that the country was at war, they didn't serve a purpose.

Also...

Free trade with corrupt and communist nations inevitably leads to intervention. (Ron Paul = Libertarian = Free trader) The Chinese government was a dirt poor 3rd world Communist nation before they began trading outside. Now China is a 2nd world Communist nation, and now a bigger threat then before! Also, thanks to nations like China sucking up more OIL, another unnecessary threat is generated; oil scarcity.

US traded with Japan, Japan felt entitled to US oil, Japan bombs Pearl Harbor as they secure new oil sources. Theres another example of how free trade inevitably leads to intervention.

In 1935 British engines were used on German ME109 prototypes. ME109 rules.

While I am not against all free trade zones, I think it is hypocritical for Ron Paul the Libertarian to be a no-interventionist and simultaneously be a hard core free-trader. Not to mention he voted against every Free Trade Agreement that blew through Congress. Theres a triple hypocrisy. If the Libertarian's goal is to lower tariffs at all costs, then he should be voting for all FTAs.

AHA! Another good example. When the economies of East and West Germany merged it was painful for West Germany. BUT AT LEAST YOU ARE ONE NATION!

With trade between the US and China (or any other dirt poor country), it is painful for the US, but American citizens will never enjoy their economic sacrifice. And neither will the Chinese.

Since I have little time at the moment I will just correct this totally historical wrong statement.

The US cut Japanese Oil supplies thus putting enourmous pressure on the japanese War in China.

Without US oil and with British, French and Dutch forces tied in Europe or weakend, Japan had to get their oil from the European colonies in southeast asia.

As the US fleet would have been a incredible risk to that operation, the Japanese had to cripple the forces at pearl habour in order to pull this expension of.

The US knew that the cutting of oil to their former friend Japan could eventually have that effect, which is the reason why the US pacific fleet was stationed in Pearl Habour in the first place.

So where is your point?

__________________

Trade inevitably leads to intervention.

Why do you assume I have "no idea" about that?I don't like the majority of republican and democratic candidates, and have previously expressed that they are both big government.Never said he would. However, I'm glad he doesn't (at this point, at least) compromise his morals and rationality to appease the retards in America.If you're trying to drive the point further that American voters are, for the most part, retarded, then you can stop. You've succeeded, and I didn't disagree with you to begin with. You're not rubbing any salt, at least not into my skin.I'm sure Ron Paul will be able to put it in better terms. However, since I'm not running, I'm not going to.If I have to choose between having Ron Paul lose, keeping his moral integrity or win, losing that integrity, I would consider the former (losing, keeping integrity) a bargain. Now, obviously, this doesn't mean RP has to be as callous as possible when discussing American workers.I think you already have more than enough retards in the demo-republican, authoritarian cesspool. I doubt you will be able to scape anymore off.

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

Why do people assume that libertarianism is anarchy? Is that how you feel when the government stops holding your hand and telling you that you can't buy alcohol until you are 21?If NOTHING is accomplished, it will already be better than pretty much anything Hillary or the next Bush clone can bring, and incredibly better than what Bush has brought. Legalization of marijuana added to it is practically a Godsend compared to the disaster we've had so far under Bush. Hell, even if Ron Paul steals 20 billion US dollars to execute 500 hookers after raping them on international television, it would still be better.

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

No Government agency is holding anyone's hand when it comes to international trade and immigration.

Bush Clone? From a guy liking a Libertarian?

Bush is a Libertarian-Republican. Bush wants cheap foreign labor gallore, Amnesty, and FTAs, as many as he can get his hands on.

If you Libertarians don't recognize that Democrats are almost entirely responsible for the massive social spending, then Libertarians in office will accomplish nothing.

You mean like voting for a Libertarian because he voted against NAFTA? Actually I wouldn't call someone retarded for falling for it, since it is quite the slight of hand the free-traitors have pulled off.

Job destroying euphamisms? Like "Global Market"? Or "Free Trade"? Sounds like something Bush would say. Or "We must stay competative"?

Is it moral integrity to give American jobs to the Communist Chinese, where the Chinese government can come in and tax their exports to build a military and American investors then have the gall to come back and say, "You are all obsolete Americans." This is no different then the slave owner selling cotton at a marked up price, and living like a glutton off the massive profits. There is no integrity involved. Its all about cheap foreign labor.

The US Constitution gives Congress the right to pass tariffs, there is nothing authoritarian about the Constitution.

You're right, we are not entirely authoritarian. What is your point?Uh, what? So partly supporting free market, and not much else, somehow makes him a libertarian? I guess Stalin was a libertarian because he didn't tax air.

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.