26 Things Non-Paul Voters Are Basically Saying

I am trying to understand the thinking behind the great many Americans who have decided to vote for a mainstream politician in 2012.

Now before you read the below and send me an angry email telling me I should be nice, that I should try to persuade them through love, etc., let me note that I have generally done that. My video appeal to Iowa radio host Steve Deace was a friendly, reasoned discussion of Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich. My videos about Rick Santorum have been straightforward examinations of the facts. (See my video on Santorum’s view that we need inflation in order to prosper, and my video on why Catholics should instead vote for Ron Paul.)

But once in a while you just can’t take it anymore, and you have to let loose.

So, whether they realize it or not, here are 26 things non-Paul supporters appear to be saying.

(1) The American political establishment has done a super job keeping our country prosperous and our liberties protected, so I’m sure whatever candidate they push on me is probably a good one.

(2) Our country is basically bankrupt. Unfunded entitlement liabilities are in excess of twice world GDP. Therefore, it’s a good idea to vote for someone who offers no specific spending cuts of any kind.

(3) Vague promises to cut spending are good enough for me, even though they have always resulted in higher spending in the past.

(4) I prefer a candidate who plays to the crowd, instead of having the courage to tell his audience things they may not want to hear.

(5) I am deeply concerned about spending. Therefore, I would like to vote for someone who supported Medicare Part D, thereby adding $7 trillion to Medicare’s unfunded liabilities.

(6) I am opposed to bailouts. Therefore, I will vote for a candidate who supported TARP.

(7) The federal government is much too involved in education, where it has no constitutional role. Therefore, I will vote for a candidate who supported expanding the Department of Education and favored the No Child Left Behind Act.

(8) Even though practically everyone was caught by surprise in the 2008 financial crisis, which we are still reeling from, it’s a good idea not to vote for the one man in politics who predicted exactly what was bound to unfold, all the way back in 2001.

(9) I am not impressed by a candidate who inspires people, especially young ones, to read the great economists and political philosophers.

(10) I am concerned about taxes. Therefore, I will not vote for the one candidate who has never supported a tax increase.

(11) I believe it is conservative to support bringing the Enlightenment to Afghanistan via military intervention.

(12) Even though I lost half my retirement portfolio when the economy crashed from the sugar high the Federal Reserve’s artificially low interest rates put it on, I would like to vote for someone who is not really interested in the Federal Reserve.

(13) Even though 50 years of the embargo on Cuba did nothing to undermine Fidel Castro, and in fact handed him a perfect excuse for all the failures of socialism, I favor continuing this policy.

(14) If someone has a drug problem, prison rape is the best solution I can think of.

(15) Even though the Constitution had to be amended to allow for alcohol prohibition, and even though I claim to care about the Constitution, I don’t mind that there’s no constitutional authorization for the war on drugs, and I will punish at the polls anyone who favors the constitutional solution of returning the issue to the states.

(16) I believe only a “liberal” would think it was inhumane to keep essential items out of Iraq in the 1990s, even though one of the first people to protest this policy was Pat Buchanan.

(17) The Brookings Institution says Newt Gingrich’s 1994 Contract with America was an insignificant nibbling around the edges. I favor people who support insignificant nibbling around the edges, as long as they occasionally trick me with a nice speech.

(18) I am deeply concerned about radical Islam, so it was a good idea to depose the secular Saddam Hussein — who was so despised by Islamists that Osama bin Laden himself offered to fight against him in the 1991 Persian Gulf War — and replace him with a Shiite regime friendly with Iran, while also bringing about a new Iraqi constitution that makes Islam the state religion and forbids any law that contradicts its teachings.

(19) Indefinite detention for U.S. citizens seems like nothing to be worried about, especially since our political class is so trustworthy that it could never abuse such a power.

(20) Following up on (19), I believe Thomas Jefferson was just being paranoid when he said, “In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”

(21) Even though the war in Iraq was based on crude propaganda I would have laughed at if the Soviet Union had peddled it, and even though the result has been hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, four million people displaced, trillions of dollars down the drain, tens of thousands of serious injuries among American servicemen and an epidemic of suicide throughout the military, not to mention the ruination of America’s reputation in the world, I see no reason to be skeptical when the same people who peddled that fiasco urge me to support yet another war as my country is going bankrupt.

(22) I do not trust the media. But when the media tells me I am not to support Ron Paul, who says things he is not allowed to say, I will comply.

(23) I know the media will smear or marginalize anyone who would really fix this country. But when the media smears and marginalizes Ron Paul, I will draw no conclusion from this.

(24) I want to be spoken to like this: “My fellow Americans, you are the awesomest of the awesome, and the only reason anyone in the world might be unhappy with your government is because of your sheer awesomeness.”

(25) I think it’s a good idea to vote for Mitt Romney, whose top three donors are Goldman Sachs, Credit Suisse, and Morgan Stanley, and a bad idea to vote for Ron Paul, whose top three donors are the U.S. Army, the U.S. Navy, and the U.S. Air Force.

(26) I have not been exploited enough by the cozy relationship between large financial firms and the U.S. government, and I would like to see it continue.

UPDATE: Some people are saying, “I oppose Ron Paul for different reasons. Why, he’ll force little kids to work in mines for 30 cents a day, he’ll destroy the environment, he’ll fire many of our selfless public servants, he believes in ‘deregulation,’” etc. Or, on the right, I hear, “He’s great on domestic policy, but he should be more pro-war.” Want replies to those? They’re right here:

For more commentaries like this, be sure to subscribe to my YouTube channel and follow me on Facebook and Twitter. Or, you could do all that at once with the new Tom Woods App for the Android!

UPDATE II: For the first time ever, I have had to turn on comment moderation on a thread. Disagreement is one thing. Foul language and abuse are another. One person in particular, throwing vile names at everyone in sight, was the reason for this policy.

Incidentally, if I may correct a few of his errors: Teddy Roosevelt, a J.P. Morgan man through and through, and whose Progressive candidacy in 1912 was bankrolled by the House of Morgan, was a champion of the common man in your sixth-grade textbook, but only there. Thomas Aquinas would disagree that faith and reason are by definition opposed. (I would ask how much of Aquinas, or Garrigou-Lagrange, the great 20th-century Thomist, our friend has read, but I think I already know the answer.) The rich paid a much higher proportion of the total tax burden after tax rates came down than before. The statistics from the 1920s on this count are especially striking. The rest of the claims were the typical “without government everyone would be an uneducated idiot whose food would be poisoned and whose consumer products would be exploding.” That’s why I wrote this book.

BC

Liberty is an eternal battle against this mindset, one which will never be fully extinguished as long as humans exist.
BC

Sorry, if you cannot understand the significance of Scheuer’s input then I have to question your own claim to authority. The burden of proof is on you.
Tony

How about we increase taxes on everyone who wants taxes to be raised? We will also raise taxes on those who CAUSED the debt. Simultaneously we will also have more money by cutting the spending on EVERYTHING to which people have no constitutional right.
Anonymous

No, the Rule of Law requires that the law applies equally to all peoples. A king (or Parlaiment, or Politburo, or Duma,) can say, “All rich/poor/black/white/jew people are subject to a 100% tax rate” That is a “law”, but it is not Rule of Law because it does no apply equally to all people. The progressive tax fails this test for the very same reason.

Any law which treats one group of people differently than another on the basis of anything OTHER than failure to comply with other laws which were compliant with the same standard of equality, is nothing more than high law or arbitrary law. IE you must have been convicted of some behavior that did NOT include some arbitrary circumstance like being black or white or rich or poor or Christian or Jewish or Athiest.

Taxing someone more on the basis of any such status, or granting them government goodies on the basis of any such status is the RULE OF MAN. That is not rule of law.
Charyl

I hope Ron Paul gets the funding he needs to run in the state of New Jersey. In 2008 they kept him off our ballot. He is the only man fit to run for president.
Anonymous

This article would be laughable if it weren’t sadly true. It really is quite sickening how the “Christian” right would rather support a warmonger and a man who is a hypocritical ethics violating womanizer than a humble Christian who actually keeps his oath of office and wants life and liberty for all including the pre-born and our men and women in the military.
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_YJ4SAPJDI4CRIJKGZ6HDQHWT4Y Joel

woods makes much better sense and arguments than paul. tom woods for president!?
Dliegmann

Indeed, very humorous, Mr. Woods. I am a massive fan of your work. I have read Rollback and Meltdown and I believe that it is very accurate and methodical in destroying the arguments put forward by progressives. In fact I would probably suggest your work has been one of the major forces shaping my ideological viewpoint, second only to the Bible. I have also read some of Gingrich’s work (To Save America, Real Change) and Paul’s work as well (Liberty Defined, The Revolution: A Manifesto) and I am in the midst of reading Rick Perrys’s Fed Up. I was merely wondering if I may ask if someone who’s a Ron Paul supporter would like to convince me one side or the other. I am teetering between Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul as for who to support. I understand the your criticism of Gingrich, you think his “Contract With America” didn’t go far enough and nibbled around the edges. To which I would say how bold or ambitious an agenda can a party put forward while still being able to capture the mainstream? Incremental change, at least during good times, is the only way to get things done. Clinton, who had the power to veto, already thought it (the Contract) was outrageous and you say if only he had done more. Gingrich would’ve been hamstrung severely by suggestions of being unrealistic, alienating the moderates etc. Meanwhile, Ron Paul, a Congressman in a district he had made fairly safe, had the luxury of being ideologically inflexible, voting no against everything he considered not in line with the Constitution. I agree that maybe it was overhyped as a conservative agenda, but still, it helped give Republicans the House, which allowed it to override Clinton’s loftier ambitions. Wouldn’t you say that less than perfect is still good enough? TARP, Medicare Part D, and the 50 billion revenue enhancement bill were Gingrich’s less-than-stellar moments, but I believe we can forgive him for these. Gingrich, besides that, also has a plan for entitlement reform, which you explained in Rollback will bust the budget, that is much more specific and more ambitious than Paul’s plans, which is, as explained in Paul’s Plan To Restore America, to allow youth to get out of SS, beyond that I have heard very little on entitlement reform besides “winding these programs down” (whatever that means in specifics). Gingrich also has a better economic program, and can better articulate it, than Paul, whose plan reads more like a budget rather than a comprehensive plan. Gingrich has 100% expensing for all capital equipment, which will increase productivity dramatically, whereas Paul has nothing on productivity. Gingrich and Paul are almost exactly the same on regulatory/tax reform, although Gingrich has placed a heightened emphasis on it, which leads me to believe he would fight for it harder. Gingrich and Paul have similar monetary policies, although Paul has placed a heightened emphasis on it, which again leads me to believe Paul wll fight for it harder, but that Gingrich would fight for it sufficiently hard. Gingrich and Paul have very similar domestic agendas, with a slight edge to Gingrich but are polar opposites on foreign policy, which I am on the fence about. Would anyone like to take a shot at why I should vote Ron Paul instead of Newt Gingrich?
Anonymous

First you would want to disreguard what anyone says without seeing how they back it up with their actions. Look at the voting record of each, then run it past the Constitution.
I don’t know if I can post a link on here, but there is an interesting article about Gingrich on News With Views (a two parter) the link is:

http://www.newswithviews.com/Nelson/kelleigh121.htm
http://www.facebook.com/people/Stephen-Spruell/100000148909286 Stephen Spruell

I want to buy the author a beverage of his choice.
Charyllee

Just click on this link and you will know that Ron Paul is the only answer to America’s problems. http://www.youtube.com/user/EndorseLiberty?v=AwbBWEljyYE
http://www.facebook.com/people/Rich-Grise/100000604104191 Rich Grise

Little bit sarcasm-impaired, are we?
http://www.facebook.com/people/Rich-Grise/100000604104191 Rich Grise

FWIW, I’m a 63-year-old Vietnam era vet, who did 8 years in the USAF. I’ve been for Ron Paul since there’s _BEEN_ a Ron Paul.
But when I look back, I think I was born Libertarian!
http://www.facebook.com/people/Rich-Grise/100000604104191 Rich Grise

I like this idea very much!

Of course, if they really want to support the welfare/warfare state, there’s nobody stopping them from just up and sending the gov’t as much of their money as they want to!
Anonymous

Besides his tin foil hat Chamberlain ideas, who’s going to feed him his porridge in-between naps as he ages more in office? Just curious.
http://www.TomWoods.com Tom Woods

Just curious, what’s it like being a neocon who just repeats agitprop lines, and thinks USA! USA! is a philosophy?
Anonymous

I don’t know what you’re talking about……USA ! USA ! nothing wrong with that statement to me…I don’t understand why that should bother you so? Nor do I see where I repeated anything from anyone. So again, please elaborate.
http://www.TomWoods.com Tom Woods

I mean, Chamberlain? Really? Because Ron Paul isn’t a Wilsonian lunatic he’s a Chamberlain? Does _everything_ out of a neocon’s mouth have to be second-grade propaganda?

I have zero patience for so-called “conservatives” who think George W. Bush’s foreign policy is conservative, morally defensible, strategically sound, whatever. It was a total disaster on all those fronts. Anyway, no debates on this; I have written exhaustively on this subject.

Just for starters, I might recommend http://www.tomwoods.com/war
Anonymous

Well for one, I’ve always been an independent going on 40 years. Secondly, I don’t mind advocating democratic capitalism, I see no problem with that. Thirdly, Bush could have waged a nuclear war in response to 9/11 but was in my opinion to moderate at a high cost ! He was also the only President to have answered on going terror that even President Kennedy had already addressed in the early 60′s.
So again, I don’t know what you’re talking about? Maybe you would have preferred to surrender and wave the white flag and convert to save yourself. You’re free to do so if you so choose.
http://www.TomWoods.com Tom Woods

I approved this comment so everyone could see a real neocon up close. Nuclear war would have been justified in response to 9/11, he says, in defiance of every just war principle Western civilization (which he of course thinks he’s defending) ever produced. Zero curiosity about the world; the only reason anyone could be unhappy with the U.S. government is that we haven’t all converted to Islam. No curiosity at all about why the American people were so well liked in the Middle East before our government got into the dictatorship-propping business.

No, no! That would be to “blame America” — back to the second-grade slogans.

This person is what is wrong with America, and why the country is financially and morally bankrupt. He would not know the real America if it punched him in the face.
Dliegmann

My apologies for taking so long to respond but it would seem that a great deal of those indictments are guilt-by-association fallacies and in response I could easily pull out something like Paul’s associations with the John Birch society, but I would prefer not to. As for the rest, I accept that no one comes even close to Paul on constitutional adherence. Indeed, were there no Constitution, NG would blow RP out of the water in my mind. But I believe that a Gingrich presidency would be a net plus for small government, constitutional federalism, especially if we use the yardstick of what Obama would do in comparison. Please feel free to civilly correct me if I am wrong.
Anonymous

My parents fought WW2.
Knocking down 4 huge towers 2 of 110 stories on our heads was by far bigger than Pearl Harbor. Pearl was a military base as opposed to a civilian target 9/11. You already know what our response was to Pearl. What’s wrong with America is the lack of spine today!
There was a time when boats were made of wood and men were made of steel. Today boats are made of steel ! You would have had Hitler marching into DC in WW2 if you were in charge at the time.
http://www.TomWoods.com Tom Woods

Again I reproduce this for pedagogical purposes. The person is incapable of anything but propaganda. Hitler, who could not get across the English Channel, would have been marching into DC if I’d had my way. And Hitler, who was himself a byproduct of this writer’s crazed Wilsonianism, and would not have emerged without Wilson’s intervention in World War I, is supposed to be my fault.

Lack of “spine” is our problem; he takes this to be “lack of willingness to violate every principle Western civilization is supposed to stand for.” He cannot imagine that people around the world might dislike his government; he takes this personally, just the way the regime wants it.

He has no independent thoughts about where this hatred comes from. It comes from how awesome he is. They hate us because of this guy’s awesomeness, and if we only lived up to our awesomeness we’d be willing to nuke everyone.

At some point I’m sure this will turn out to be a friend pulling my leg; I’m slightly surprised that even a neocon would argue at such a gutter level. And it’s funny: this neocon probably thinks he’s fighting against political correctness, when in fact in his every historical assumption he carefully adopts the approved establishment version of things.
Anonymous

I’m a fifth generation American. My parents lived in English Colony Egypt, Cairo as Americans under British rule, from the early 20′s until America gave liberty to most of Africa in 1955, my parents left in 1953. My dad represented American interests there and helped to build Cairo. We have yet to get a thanks for liberating them. All we’ve gotten is terror for a thank you. You are a twister of history and lack the proper knowledge to be teaching anything in this topic.
Anonymous

I’m a fifth generation American. My parents lived in English Colony Egypt, Cairo as Americans under British rule, from the early 20′s until America gave liberty to most of Africa in 1955, my parents left in 1953. My dad represented American interests there and helped to build Cairo. We have yet to get a thanks for liberating them. All we’ve gotten is terror for a thank you. You are a twister of history and lack the proper knowledge to be teaching anything in this topic.

Hitler was blowing up our merchant marines in international and our waters in WW2 ..We had nazi spies landing on American shores that the mob was hired to take care of. What world do you live in?
http://www.TomWoods.com Tom Woods

Why haven’t these ingrates thanked us for imposing Hosni Mubarak on them? The nerve! They must not appreciate our awesomeness enough.

I tried to approve your comment to the effect “what world are you living in?” but I’m still waiting for it to show up. You mentioned Hitlerian attacks on the U.S. merchant marine and Nazi spies in the U.S. Are you seriously comparing that to an all-out invasion of the U.S.?

You are exactly what the regime wants: someone with zero curiosity about the world, who accepts every boilerplate explanation the establishment gives him, and who is ready to incinerate anyone he’s told to, while waving his flag and thinking he’s a great American, instead of a disgusting disgrace to America.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Catrina-Glasl/512260222 Catrina Glasl

The way for him to win a primary or a caucus is for people to vote for him… what part of the process are you missing here?
http://www.TomWoods.com Tom Woods

Since I never said TR wasn’t a Progressive, either in his day or now, I have no idea what prompted this little lecture. I did say his image as the great champion of the common man is nonsense, but unless you hold the view that “Progressive” by definition means “champion of the common man,” I see no problem with my statement.

You then say “anyone who knows even a little political history” knows J.P. Morgan bankrolled the Progressive Party. Put your money where your mouth is. Let’s do a survey of Americans. If even 7% are aware of this, I’ll donate $10,000 to your favorite charity. If the number is smaller, I’ll be a sport and say you have to give only $5,000 to mine.
Denai

(27) I hate America’s recent attack on religious rights. I want to vote for someone that will restore my religious rights, so we can go back to attacking Islamic religions and nations
Denai

You don’t see an issue with all Americans and Corporations putting their money into a big pot and waiting for the government to give it back to you as they see fit. Do you trust the government that much to do what is right? I would rather us all keep our money and spend it in the economy so people can get back to work.
Anonymous

Tom, I’m only going to disagree with one thing, turning on moderation. While I know lurkers and flamers are annoying, they expose the idiocy of the enemy. By “the enemy” I mean unthinking, uninformed fools. It’s important that the rest of us see the enemy for what they are and understand what kind of lunacy we have to fight. When you turn on moderation, you protect others from the knowledge of the enemy we must destroy. While your heart is in the right place, we all have to deal with these people because in truth, they are not just your enemy, but all of ours.
http://www.TomWoods.com Tom Woods

This was not a question of lunacy. I am content to let lunacy stand. This was disgusting vulgarity, on a topic that had zero to do with the post.
Anonymous

Dear Mr. Woods,

With all due respect, you need to understand the US monetary system post 1972 (post-our going off the gold standard).

This link gives you access to a radio interview on Straight Talk. The speaker starts around 18 minutes in. And the book in the left panel is something you should read.
http://moslereconomics.com/
Anonymous

You are confusing some things. First off prices in a free market have nothing whatsoever to do with laws at all. If I own a plane, road, farm, or ipod factory I can set whatever price I like. You may buy my product or a competitors. Law, much less Rule of Law is a non-sequitur.

However sales tax is not against the Rule of Law, per se, IF it applies to all equally. (the economic question is entirely different) IE if there is a 5% sales tax on goods, and it applies to everyone. That tax can be in accordance with the Rule of Law. However if black people pay more, or less, or rich people pay more, or less, or Christians pay more, or less, or gay people pay more, or less, by virtue of some arbitrary distinction unrelated to previous criminal activity, then that WOULD be a violation of the Rule of Law.

So yes if you pay the same rate or same flat fee for property tax, as Bill Gates, the rate may be fair or unfair, economically more or less destructive, but so long as the law applies to everyone equally, regardless of some classification, it can be in accordance with the Rule of Law. You wouldn’t pay property tax if you own no property, but they could as well assign a capitation, charging you $100 per year just for being alive. That would be bad, possibly unfair, but not against the Rule of Law, per se, as it applies to everyone.

The Rule of Law is a pretty low bar. It is not the end all, be all of a good government, if we assume there is such a thing. But certainly it is bad when we ignore it, or don’t understand it.
Anonymous

What a great post! How about this one:
27) I really hate what the progressives had done to our country. Marxism is evil. But we need to keep the rich people paying a lot of taxes because there are so many unemployed out there who need food stamps.
or this:
28) The UN wants to take away my guns, internet and and destroy my property rights with their Agenda 21 but we need a candidate who will work with the UN to help them be a better advocate for peace in the world.
OY! I can have fun with this! Thanks!
Richard Rider

Thanks, Tom for bringing up the wager point. I’ve been offering such sucker bets to statists for 30 years. Like your offer, I’m never fair. I’m just correct.

Sadly, I can’t get opponents to accept such wagers (and, like you, I want to wager 5 and sometimes 6 figures on various facts and issues), but — no matter how vociferous their attacks, none has ever accepted my sucker bets (above a few hundred dollars, which is of little interest to me).

And, BTW, I always insist the money be escrowed prior to the resolution, which sometimes calls for waiting for some future event to occur — or not occur.

Clearly, they are not as dumb as we think!
Richard Rider

<>

REALLY??? You think the President is some budget ceremonial figurehead????

The Constitution required the budget to ORIGINATE in the House, but it doesn’t require the President to APPROVE the budget. He’s got this veto thingy he can use.

Reagan, for all his annual budget bluster, wouldn’t use it. I think we can be sure that Ron Paul would. With relish and vigor!

I doubt he would approve any budget that included funding for the Department of Education. For starters. The list of unConstitutional spending items is long indeed.
http://www.facebook.com/GaryLABirge Gary L. Birge

u left out that everyone keeps pushing the race card…..that he is a racist!…. ludicrous!
Dean

This is brilliant. Thank you.
http://www.TomWoods.com Tom Woods

Approve.
http://www.facebook.com/people/RubyJoanne-Pearson/100001460470665 RubyJoanne Pearson

WOW . . . YOU GO . . . . THANK YOU VERY MUCH : )
Anonymous

As I’ve often stated the term
“conservative” can mean many things to many people. What I like about
Ron Paul is that he is a PURIST when it comes to upholding the U.S.
Constitution that he swore a sacred oath to uphold. In other words
– Ron Paul is a CONSTITUTIONALIST. Sadly, too many reps and candidates
treat the U.S. Constitution as just a List of Suggestions, instead of
this nation’s Supreme Rule of Law. Too many treat their oath as just an
anomaly and think they can Cherry Pick which parts of the constitution
they will abide to and which parts they will dismiss when it doesn’t
suit their whims or agenda. That sacred oath is a CONTRACT that they’ve
sworn to uphold and abide to.
Gouldfervor

to steal a phrase “Wake up America!!”
Mark Griggs

I didn’t know who this Tom Woods fella was before his alliance with Ron Paul but I can guarantee you that any chance I have to vote for Mr Woods, I will do so with integrity and fervor. He has been loyal even in hard times to the one man with conviction and because of that loyalty Tom has since found a new group of loyal fans. Come check us out and join on us on Facebook; Veterans for Ron Paul. Don’t forget to vote and support Mr Woods.
-2x OEF Army Intelligence Veteran
http://www.facebook.com/people/Paul-Bonneau/100002094647954 Paul Bonneau

“I am trying to understand the thinking behind the great many Americans
who have decided to vote for a mainstream politician in 2012.”

There’s your error Tom. There is little thinking involved. It’s all worldviews, which frees people from having to think, as I explained here:
http://strike-the-root.com/problem-with-people-are-idiots-meme

The basic problem is that you still believe in democracy, in the political process. It is not something amenable to reasoned discussion. We can’t reform this beast. We have to accept that a revolution is coming.
Libertysonian

(27) I don’t like the current president so i’m gladly going to vote for the opposition, whom ever that may be, even though they might end up doing the exact same thing that i don’t like, but as long a different guy is doing just that it’s fine by me.
Jason

Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are now being investigated for their Sub for Votes event, you can find the video on Youtube Romney and Ryan are found at Cousins Subs handing out subs for Votes, ITS A FELONY! It looks like Romney is DONE!
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1298938275 William Bush

Most of these 26 things are Bogus, and aren’t backed up by any facts.Ron Paul is Not a Conservative, He’s a Libertarian. He’s right on the economy, but dangerously wrong on National Defense.
No, I’m not saying we should police the world, but we should stand for Liberty and aid those who request aid in keeping Their Freedoms and rights. Stand for Truth, and against Evil.
http://www.TomWoods.com Tom Woods

Name me one that isn’t based in fact.
Anonymous

Yeah THAT’s IT All We Ron Paul supporters are going to take over the Government

AND LEAVE YOU ALONE