Shared publicly  - 
"I Think Ron Paul Just Won Iowa!" - Rachel Maddow, April 23, 2012 - [6:31]
Justin Bale's profile photoDwayne Knight (Dark Cyberian Knight)'s profile photo
His wanting to force religious beliefs is what really gets me. I agree on his military policies though.
+Adam Sweet Do you have a quote or something Paul wrote to cite? To support each claim?

+Lou Gagliardi I don't think Paul is a bigot. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.

I think Ron Paul is wrong but less wrong than the alternatives for republican candidate. I think he makes for an interesting and meaningful debate. I don't think Obama is liberal enough for me.
+Adam Sweet When you make an assertion it's on you to back it up, and boy did your links ever do it. I hope Paul would have the character to govern the way He's campaigned, but now I'm very worried he wouldn't and would skew closer to Santorum's level of crazy.

I do think there is room for personal morals and ethics to inform decision making. I being an atheist just happen to think religiously derived morals and ethics are faulty by premiss. It's a fine line. I don't know many that could walk it.

I still don't see that this makes him a bigot just a science denier.

I like the good cheer of Christmas the spirit of sharing and good will minus the lying to children and belief that Jesus was born then or was divine.
I don't like foreign wars I want the military cut down.
I don't think the state should be involved in marriage.
I don't like immigration quotas or any other xenophobic isolationist BS.
I want a plan for affirmative action with an end date and how to move toward solving the wealth disparity problem.
I want less and better regulation with good enforcement.

Ron Paul doesn't answer all my questions but he addresses some of them more meaningfully than others.
+Darque Wing

Bush violated the declaration which required UN support which he lacked. I don't think Paul would have.

Why should there be a marriage tax benefit or penalty? All the rights and privileges should be equally available, enforced, and defended under contract law. Then stupid definition arguments can be ignored. I'd prefer the government limit it's interpersonal social engineering.

Separating from the UN seems pretty dumb NATO I'm less sure. Is NATO need now?

I want a more universal program. Affirmative action is targeted at racial minorities. I want the racial difference in opportunity caused by slavery eliminated. The universal opportunity to rise economically is related, but not the same.

I'm of the opinion government is already corrupted by groups of battling corporate interests. I think there's a lot of bad regulation in with the good. I'm looking for an alternative to the hold the senate hostage republican's.
There's plenty of white poverty that should be worked on too.

I should be able to enter into the same exchange of rights and privileges with anybody and everybody I choose and the government should enforce it equally. I don't care if it offends someone. Heck sometime I like offending some people.
+Darque Wing You take offense to me suggesting working to a universal solution for poverty. Then accuse me of caring more about the white poor when from my perspective you are the one who wants to ignore them.

I'm for total cost pricing. That would mean sequestering or offsetting pollution and that cost being held to those emitting pollution liquid sold gas and anything else you might come up with and that means for everyone from the major industrial contributors down to the individual.

I care about people dying even the people who kill others and themselves though they are lower on my priority list.

Track record is all nations fail change and reform.