Do you honestly believe that The Green Party has any chance of winning? Of course not. There isn't one liberal who could defeat Obama.

Not to mention, Obama has given liberalism a bad name. A lot of the country, right and center, honestly believe that we have gotten where we have gotten because of liberal policies. I doubt they would vote for a "more liberal" candidat e than Obama.

 However, on the right you have many, and I mean many libertarians who see the American two party political system as a fake fight between two old friends. This group wants to end the wars, the American Empire and restore our civil liberties. They see Bush as a traitor to their ideals and would not vote for a former Governor of Texas for president again.These people are far more politically active than the average American, and are actually the root of the Tea Party. 

 And on the left, you have many liberals who see Obama as a further right president than Bush. They want to do the things I listed above, and have much more in common with the typical libertarian than our divisive media would allow us to recognize. Let's call this the Coffee Party.

 So why not join these two angry, discontent and abandoned groups, Tea and Coffee, and take on the system? Why not form a coalition, for the first time in decades, of Americans from all ends of the political spectrum so that we can actually change Washington, instead of hoping that it happens sometime in the future? We have finally found one honest man who believes what we says (whether you agree or not), something rarely found in Washington, and you suggest we pass him up to set our sights on 2016? 

 But what happens in 2016, we elect another Democrat? But what Democrat can you remember that had more of a mandate for change than Obama? He RAN his campaign on Hope and Change, and he gets into office and doesn't change anything. What does that say about the intents of his financiers?After eight years of Bush, who got us into pointless wars, stripped our civil liberties and tanked the economy, the country wanted Obama to change Washington, but he sat on his hands and did nothing, just to please his corporate masters. 

 If Obama, a mainstream poli tician with the wind to his back (who ran on Hope and Change) wouldn't change the system, who would? The next Democrat? The one after? Why wait when the possibility o f legitimate chan ge for the better is right in front of us?

 We're going to have to break free the things that divide us and focus on the things that unite us if we ever want to see change take place. We are going to have to sacrifice some of our ideals for the sake of our children, and their children.

We are going to have to say, "I will vote for a creationist if it gets my tax dollars out of the Middle East.". We are going to have to say "I will vote for an anti-abortionist if it means reduced crime rates and saving countless youth from lives of perpetual imprisionment by ending the War on Drugs.".

 Why should we pass up this amazing moment in Americas history, so that we can once again hope to change things? Why should we pass up this amazing moment so that we can hope that in maybe sixteen, twenty years we will get another candidate  ;who believes what he says, actually is against the system we have that is controlled by the flow of corporate money, and has the support of Americans across the political spectrum?

 You've already seen how long it has taken Ron Paul to get a legitimate national platform. Are you really will to pass it up to hope that we we change things in the future, rather than attempting to change the present?

 At this moment, we are seeing the unconscious merger of the abandoned left and the abandoned right. Coffee and Tea are mixing. Perry, Romney and Bachmann don't have legitimate c hances of winning. Everyone knows that. Obama will be re-elected;a billion dollars goes a long way. So what do you do, you being a rational as I know you to be, do when you have nothing to lose and the world to gain?

 Those just are my thoughts. I will be voting for Ron Paul, (seeing as it will be the first time I will be able to vote) and I hope you would join me. This country cannot afford to be run by corporate sellouts who abandon all ideals in hopes of gaining corporate money. The people of this country cannot afford to be ignored anymore, their voices unheard as they desperately seek to implement real change. The time to take our country back isn't in four years, eight years, or twelve years; the time is now.

"The term 'national debt' is a way for the rich to con the poor into paying the tab of the former's escapades."

"That notion was in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson, and most people adopted it, even though there's nothing about it in the Constitution. The Constitution simply prevents the government from interfering with an individual's religious practicing or from adopting an official Federal religion. There is no Constitutional basis for the common definition of 'separation of church and state'.

End to national curriculum: State-based curriculum, bro. He's in favour of states' rights"

.

(Notice how almost everything in the top list is bypassed now away)

 I don't agree with Ron Paul on everything, but the fact is, he (and what he represents) is one of the only few things that can wrestle the control of corporations and big money out of government. If not do that, then at least he can put that concept into American heads, so that maybe in the future we will be able to see politicians n ot as Republican or Democrat, but Corporate and Populist.

 And you can't be serious. Ending the social safety net? Neither Democrat nor Republican would touch that. Return of strikebreakers and pinkertons? Hell, thats too toxic for Republicans. End of minimum wage?

 See, the factor you leave out is the American people. You act as if the president has dictatorial powers. He doesn't. If the American people rejected the ideas of ending all of these "pleasantries", such as the social safety net, he wouldn't be able to do it, period.

 However, he would be able to end the "unpleasantries" that most Americans want ended but their leaders won't do, such as the Middle East wars, corporate campaign financing, the War on Drugs, and the military industrial complex. The repeal of these "unpleasantries" are a few reasons why I support Paul.

 Either you're being disingenuous, or you don't know Paul's views. Perhaps you would like to see a clip of him saying, "Corporations aren't people", something both the corporate bought Democrats and corporate bought Republicans would never be caught saying (because then of course it would be harder to get "speech"). Or perhaps you would like to learn that Paul doesn't only oppose big government, but anything with too much power over the daily lives of Americans.

 It is the thinking like yours coming from the left that gets us nowhere; the thinking that liberal 3rd party candidates are hopeless, anyone with a libertarian view is inherently dumb, conservatives are evil, and therefore your only options are the Democrats or (in an off election) no one. It that type of thinking from the left that keeps liberals "tamed" within the party, unable to think outside the box by supporting someone who has honest political beliefs that are 50% different from yours. 

 Instead you consistently support the Party, through thick and thin, through abuse and neglect, because hell, "Atleast they aren't Republicans, right?"

"The term 'national debt' is a way for the rich to con the poor into paying the tab of the former's escapades."

Ron Paul's record shows that he will act in accordance with the Constitution no matter what his personal beliefs are, which is made all the more amusing by the fact that he hardly, if ever, makes a public issue of his religion, because he doesn't want to be seen as exploiting it for political gain.  And yet, people swarm on it like a hornet's nest.

I would rather be made to look like a sucker if he backs out on his record as President than knowlingly keep blood on my hands voting for anyone else.

or are you saying outright that you can't read, since you apparently don't realize that you said nothing that doesn't agree with me.

The purpose of the separation of church and state was to prevent government policy from being enacted that would favor some churches/religions at the expense of others (brought on by the experiences from England).  Hence Congress "establishing a religion".

But none of that says anything about whether or not one can be openly religious and be in government (which, ironically, Paul makes the least references to his faith amongst the major candidates).  You just cannot use government to advance your religious interests at the expense of other religions.  Roe v. Wade is clearly in Paul's personal/religious interests, but Roe v. Wade is also clearly outside of the scope of the Constitution's authority with regards to SCOTUS.  And he will do what is Constitutionally allowed (if possible, which is questionable in itself).  But it's not as if he's going to protest Roe v. Wade and sit like a lame duck after that.  There's plenty of clever power shifting that's been done through the judiciary that needs cleansing, and his stated goal is to work his way through all of it.

"Libertarianism is an extreme form of capitalism, but there are many different flavors of capitalism."

Wrong.  If property rights and free enterprise are not strictly observed, it is not capitalism.  You are then in a mixed economy, which may have capitalist tendencies but is not capitalist by any means.  If the government controls the medium of exchange (the dollar), and the dollar does not have to be backed by value as with all other exchanges, then there's nothing capitalist about it.  The producer and consumer are not trading based on real value, they're trading at a value set by the government, which may not have anything to do with real value (and quite frankly, they don't need to care if it does).

"But it may be that you would have to have actually studied economics to understand these things..."

That's a statement rich with irony, since you haven't shown yourself to have done any significant study of economics.   But you parrot the party line quite well.

"...the three principles that I described are necessary conditions for libertarianism to not slide into anarchy."

Since you're so well-versed in economics I'm sure you can explain to me how your three principles (particularly principle #1) should so easily contradict the established position, which Ron Paul accepts, set forth by Leonard Read in  I, Pencil.  "I, Pencil", one of the most famous essays on economics ever written, demonstrates that no actor in the economy has perfect knowledge, and yet, everything works and tends towards its most efficient use (hence Adam Smith's phrase "the invisible hand").

And do you really know what anarchy means?  No, not what the dictionary or what Cenk tell you, the real definition?  "No authority" is not meant to be taken at face value; "no authority" means "no authority or rules that one does not consent to abide by".

Have you ever considered what it means to drive a car?  Thousands (or where I live, millions) of drivers every day, all with their own plans and destinations.  Virtually no driver knows what the drivers around them are doing, where they're going, how they plan to get there, etc.  Some drivers may not value their lives as much and act recklessly to get where they're going, other drivers may place great value on their lives and try to stay out of any sort of traffic situation.  But all these millions of different attitudes and values collide all at once, a mess of individual decisions...but the result is not chaos.  On the contrary, given the extremely low rate of accidents on the roads it is a miracle of spontaneous order.

That's anarchy, and that's the nature of a free market.

(And the government's traffic rules and laws don't enter into it, because there's nothing to stop anybody from breaking those rules.  And what's the most common defense when stopped by the police for breaking a traffic law?  "I wasn't hurting anybody else."  Hence you did not follow those rules for the sake of the government, but for the sake of your fellow drivers.)

"As far as the other stuff, I provided links showing Ron Paul saying those things."

There was no "other stuff", there was your statement in which Ron Paul claimed he was a scientist for which you provided no source that I found.

I think deregulating the economy and conducting the Holocaust have little incommon. With that said, sometimes to gain you need to sacrifice. Sometimes you need to give up to get. Atleast at the end of the day, you have something. 

Why are you anti-Paul liberals so afraid of doing that? Why are you afraid of change unless it is exactly what falls in line with your beliefs, of course personally delivered to you by a young, smooth talking politician?

"The term 'national debt' is a way for the rich to con the poor into paying the tab of the former's escapades."