Maybe Ron Paul will be the GOP nominee

[phk]

I'd vote for him, even if I don't find him to be particularly libertarian (or a particularly good candidate whatsoever), for a protest vote.

     I agree with this, & I must say that I am pleasantly surprised by your attitude lately. While Ron Paul is nowhere close to being socially liberal enough, Obama's economic policies are thoroughly abhorrent. Of course, the odds of either party putting up an actually good candidate are pretty miserable anyway.

Social liberalism doesn't necessarily equal socially libertarian.

[Scam of God]

I'd vote for him, even if I don't find him to be particularly libertarian (or a particularly good candidate whatsoever), for a protest vote.

     I agree with this, & I must say that I am pleasantly surprised by your attitude lately. While Ron Paul is nowhere close to being socially liberal enough, Obama's economic policies are thoroughly abhorrent. Of course, the odds of either party putting up an actually good candidate are pretty miserable anyway.

Social liberalism doesn't necessarily equal socially libertarian.

They're far closer than social libertarianism is to social conservatism. Socially conservative libertarianism (i.e. paleolibertaranism of the Lew Rockwellian variety, or Paul's paleolibertarianism) relies on insane vagaries, like "If the family decays, the State has to support them!" Well, no. I don't care if divorce rates go up; if a mother divorces her husband, it's not the State's business to care that her own actions have led her to harm, and it's not the State's business to see to it that she's kept from harm, either. I don't care what sort of warm-and-fuzzy-tummy-bunnies you get from meditating on the profundities of the Holy Trinity; I don't want it in my government.

I'd vote for a social liberal who's moderate on economics before I'd vote for a hardline social conservative.

[Phony Moderate]

I agree with Ron Paul on Foreign Policy and Marijuana, that's it. He's just another religious extremist. He thinks states should have the right to enforce Sodomy Law, he voted for the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, the DC Gay Adoption Ban Act, he hangs around with nuts like Alex Jones, he allowed (or possibly wrote) racist stuff in his newsletters, and he voted aganist giving Rosa Parks a Medal of Honour.

[SPC]

I'd vote for him, even if I don't find him to be particularly libertarian (or a particularly good candidate whatsoever), for a protest vote.

     I agree with this, & I must say that I am pleasantly surprised by your attitude lately. While Ron Paul is nowhere close to being socially liberal enough, Obama's economic policies are thoroughly abhorrent. Of course, the odds of either party putting up an actually good candidate are pretty miserable anyway.

Social liberalism doesn't necessarily equal socially libertarian.

They're far closer than social libertarianism is to social conservatism. Socially conservative libertarianism (i.e. paleolibertaranism of the Lew Rockwellian variety, or Paul's paleolibertarianism) relies on insane vagaries, like "If the family decays, the State has to support them!" Well, no. I don't care if divorce rates go up; if a mother divorces her husband, it's not the State's business to care that her own actions have led her to harm, and it's not the State's business to see to it that she's kept from harm, either. I don't care what sort of warm-and-fuzzy-tummy-bunnies you get from meditating on the profundities of the Holy Trinity; I don't want it in my government.

I'd vote for a social liberal who's moderate on economics before I'd vote for a hardline social conservative.

Could you provide a quote where Lew Rockwell, Ron Paul, and anyone associated with him calls for state intervention in family life?

[Scam of God]

I'd vote for him, even if I don't find him to be particularly libertarian (or a particularly good candidate whatsoever), for a protest vote.

     I agree with this, & I must say that I am pleasantly surprised by your attitude lately. While Ron Paul is nowhere close to being socially liberal enough, Obama's economic policies are thoroughly abhorrent. Of course, the odds of either party putting up an actually good candidate are pretty miserable anyway.

Social liberalism doesn't necessarily equal socially libertarian.

They're far closer than social libertarianism is to social conservatism. Socially conservative libertarianism (i.e. paleolibertaranism of the Lew Rockwellian variety, or Paul's paleolibertarianism) relies on insane vagaries, like "If the family decays, the State has to support them!" Well, no. I don't care if divorce rates go up; if a mother divorces her husband, it's not the State's business to care that her own actions have led her to harm, and it's not the State's business to see to it that she's kept from harm, either. I don't care what sort of warm-and-fuzzy-tummy-bunnies you get from meditating on the profundities of the Holy Trinity; I don't want it in my government.

I'd vote for a social liberal who's moderate on economics before I'd vote for a hardline social conservative.

Could you provide a quote where Lew Rockwell, Ron Paul, and anyone associated with him calls for state intervention in family life?

Happily.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you can't see the basic incoherencies of this non-philosophy, then you've surpassed even my expectations of your own stupidity.

[Governor PiT]

Paul might carry Nebraska-3. Obama would take the other 534 electoral votes.

Nah, Paul would definitely win Alaska, Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming.

I dunno, man, on the Internet he's almost mainstream but he is so extreme it's hard for me to see him winning anywhere, honestly. The guy does not support anything.

Get rid of everything... except raise tariffs, have an authoritarian immigration policy, and allowing states to ban abortion on a whim.

I saw The Onion summarize his economic policy well, he'd get rid of the economy.

Paul isn't pro tariffs, he's just against the bureaucracy behind WTO, NAFTA, etc. Which frankly, he has a point on.

No, he doesn't. Do you have any idea how many more Chávezes would pop up overnight if you cut them off completely from the jobs American companies offer?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In other words: "Hey, wetbacks? Your country's been overrun by a socialist revolution? Well, f**k you jack; I've got mine!"

I would rather see more Chavez's in Latin American than more Rockefeller Globalist Puppets. Chavez really sticks it to the International Zionist and New World Order.

[Vepres]

I'd vote for him, even if I don't find him to be particularly libertarian (or a particularly good candidate whatsoever), for a protest vote.

     I agree with this, & I must say that I am pleasantly surprised by your attitude lately. While Ron Paul is nowhere close to being socially liberal enough, Obama's economic policies are thoroughly abhorrent. Of course, the odds of either party putting up an actually good candidate are pretty miserable anyway.

Social liberalism doesn't necessarily equal socially libertarian.

They're far closer than social libertarianism is to social conservatism. Socially conservative libertarianism (i.e. paleolibertaranism of the Lew Rockwellian variety, or Paul's paleolibertarianism) relies on insane vagaries, like "If the family decays, the State has to support them!" Well, no. I don't care if divorce rates go up; if a mother divorces her husband, it's not the State's business to care that her own actions have led her to harm, and it's not the State's business to see to it that she's kept from harm, either. I don't care what sort of warm-and-fuzzy-tummy-bunnies you get from meditating on the profundities of the Holy Trinity; I don't want it in my government.

I'd vote for a social liberal who's moderate on economics before I'd vote for a hardline social conservative.

Could you provide a quote where Lew Rockwell, Ron Paul, and anyone associated with him calls for state intervention in family life?

The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. — Ron Paul

Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view. The justification is always that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended or feel uncomfortable living in the midst of a largely Christian society, so all must yield to the fragile sensibilities of the few. The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity. — Ron Paul

The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. — Ron Paul

So, the candidate that got the most votes from independents in many states is somehow unelectable?

CNN Exit Polls of Independents

Iowa
Paul: 29%
McCain: 23%
Romney: 19%

New Hampshire
McCain: 40%
Romney: 23%
Paul: 13%

Michigan
McCain: 35%
Romney: 29%
Huckabee: 15%

Nevada*
Paul: 51%
McCain: 13%
Romney: 12%

*The independent's share of the electorate was only 12%, which probably means most voted in the Democratic primary, save hard-core Paul supporters.

South Carolina
McCain: 42%
Huckabee: 25%
Romney: 12%

Florida
McCain: 44%
Romney: 23%
Giuliani: 13%

California
McCain: 49%
Romney: 26%
Huckabee: 9%

Connecticut
McCain: 53%
Romney: 24%
Paul: 13%

Alabama
Huckabee: 45%
McCain: 32%
Romney: 12%

Texas
McCain: 47%
Huckabee: 29%
Paul: 13%

As you can see, Paul only received a significant amount of the independent vote in Nevada, a state with a very libertarian culture among non-democrats, and Iowa, where I would bet many independents voted for Obama in the Democratic primary.

Even in his homestate, Paul finished dead last (only three candidates remained).

Not what I'd call strong with independents.

[JSojourner]

Ron Paul actually represents a good long term direction for the GOP to take IMO.  Their current brand/coalition is collapsing and shrinking.  They need to pry their party out of the death grip Evangelicals have on it and a Ron Paul like candidate would be perfect for that.

Isn't Paul in lockstep with the Christian right on choice, gay issues, school prayer and dismantling or de-funding public schools?  I'd think he'd be a wet dream candidate for them.

[SPC]

I'd vote for him, even if I don't find him to be particularly libertarian (or a particularly good candidate whatsoever), for a protest vote.

     I agree with this, & I must say that I am pleasantly surprised by your attitude lately. While Ron Paul is nowhere close to being socially liberal enough, Obama's economic policies are thoroughly abhorrent. Of course, the odds of either party putting up an actually good candidate are pretty miserable anyway.

Social liberalism doesn't necessarily equal socially libertarian.

They're far closer than social libertarianism is to social conservatism. Socially conservative libertarianism (i.e. paleolibertaranism of the Lew Rockwellian variety, or Paul's paleolibertarianism) relies on insane vagaries, like "If the family decays, the State has to support them!" Well, no. I don't care if divorce rates go up; if a mother divorces her husband, it's not the State's business to care that her own actions have led her to harm, and it's not the State's business to see to it that she's kept from harm, either. I don't care what sort of warm-and-fuzzy-tummy-bunnies you get from meditating on the profundities of the Holy Trinity; I don't want it in my government.

I'd vote for a social liberal who's moderate on economics before I'd vote for a hardline social conservative.

Could you provide a quote where Lew Rockwell, Ron Paul, and anyone associated with him calls for state intervention in family life?

Happily.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you can't see the basic incoherencies of this non-philosophy, then you've surpassed even my expectations of your own stupidity.

That doesn't say that the state should intervene in family life, it just says that many turn to the state in lieu of a strong family. You should read your quotes before you post them.