[tvtimeout]

(1) Statements like this one make me wonder about you. Evidently you are too young to understand the realities of our national defense and way in which the armed services protect us. I guess most of what you say along these lines was planted in your mind in college (you did go right?) and sounds like the crap I use to hear coming out of the mouths of stoned dopehead philosophers, sitting in a darkened room staring at black lights. Rarely does America get to sort of pick and choose which conflicts we get involved with. Simply put, defense is just that. Bad guys in this world have in times past put a gun to our head and we have responded in kind. Whether you can accept it or not, we would not be a free people right now if we were in ANY way reluctant to take up arms in our own defense. Case in point, we bent over backwards to accomodate the arab world for decades. In the end all our appeasements in the form of aid and welcoming them into our country by the millions, setting them up in business and educating them all on the taxpayer dime, resulted in the tragedy of 911. Over 3000 innocents, and between 3-4 trillion in direct losses to our economy. Living the isolationist vision has not benefitted us one iota. In short, you owe your freedom to the military compex you keep slamming on every other post.

(2) Look at it like this, say you want to get to LA. Right now there is a for sure ride to Denver but there are no flights to LA. Wouldn't it be better to get as far towards your ultimate destination as you possibly can for the present? Denver is much closer to LA than Paintsville is right? Same thing is true in this case. Ron Paul may be your ticket to LA but he is grounded and going nowhere. Why not fly with Romney to Denver and at least invest your time and money in a sure improvement, making progress in the right direction. Or you can invest your time and money on Paul and just be mad because things didn't get any better.

There are few misconceptions here: I believe that my freedom is due to being born in the right circumstances at the right time: does the military have something to do with this absolutely, but could you explain how a current german base benefits my freedom here in Kentucky, or a base in London, England, or Japan, or Iraq or Afgahnastan or in 130+ countries around the world.

I am young and maybe to relient on technology but I do recall having airplanes that could get fueled in the air, I remember something called an aircraft carriers, so why do I need bases?

I did attend and graduated from an University...but that should not have any bearing a forming a logical reasoning on why I should or should not vote for someone and explain why I should vote for someone else. I also went to what would be considered a very conservative University.

You make an interesting point about the middle east, are saying that we were just in putting Isreal into place in 1945? To your point about giving aide... do we not decide that.... I would have not have given aide...period. It is not the United States business other than commerce with other nations.

Also I would disagree with the thought America does not pick which conflict it gets itself into. I would use the Iraqi war as a starting point...

Now as far as Presidental canidates: I am open to vote for Romney but I will need to be convinced... I think he is a republicrat, not by what he says but by his actions...romney care will be my starting point. To use your analogy Romeny doesn't get my to Colorado but to Ohio. I am not better off and neither is the cause... but I can be convinced he might be better than Ron Paul.

Here is the starting point with Ron he has been consistant throught his life, believes in the constitution, and I agree with him on his ideas on taxation and foreign policy. However, he never gets the time of day on "Fari and Balance" or like I call it " They report, you obey"...I could point to Charles Chritnihemer (sp) Britt Hume and Kristol as my starting points.

[TheRealThing]

There are few misconceptions here:

I agree, I was just trying to point out a few facts to you but I was under the misconception logic may have some impact on you, I misjudged the level of your indoctrination.

[tvtimeout]

I agree, I was just trying to point out a few facts to you but I was under the misconception logic may have some impact on you, I misjudged the level of your indoctrination.

It does...again if you would be so kind to articulate why I should vote for Romney and tell me why I should support the concept of being in over 130 countries around the world, I would be very inclined to listen.

[TheRealThing]

It does...again if you would be so kind to articulate why I should vote for Romney and tell me why I should support the concept of being in over 130 countries around the world, I would be very inclined to listen.

No, tvtimeout, you wouldn't. You're indoctrinated. In your mind all the honorable gentlemen that make up the highest echelons of our national defense are a bunch of Rambos out looking for something to kill. In reality, these folks are men and women of honor. To my notion we all owe them our utmost respect and can trust them a lot more than the likes of those that occupy the highest levels of federal government in our land. As I have said earlier in this thread, and BTW it seemed to go right over your head, each of us owes our freedom to the US armed services.

The US presently operates 662 foreign bases in 38 countries. I know, Ron Paul says it's 130 countries but, it isn't near that many. You really ought to look some of this stuff up instead of parroting the libertarian talking points.

[tvtimeout]

[/B]


No, tvtimeout, you wouldn't. You're indoctrinated. In your mind all the honorable gentlemen that make up the highest echelons of our national defense are a bunch of Rambos out looking for something to kill. In reality, these folks are men and women of honor. To my notion we all owe them our utmost respect and can trust them a lot more than the likes of those that occupy the highest levels of federal government in our land. As I have said earlier in this thread, and BTW it seemed to go right over your head, each of us owes our freedom to the US armed services.

The US presently operates 662 foreign bases in 38 countries. I know, Ron Paul says it's 130 countries but, it isn't near that many. You really ought to look some of this stuff up instead of parroting the libertarian talking points.

When did I ever say anything like that... I could point to Rumsfield saying something like that but not me.

Is having this many bases the cost for me to have freedom...662 bases in foreign countries. Does this make me safe? Is that the starting point for this debate? I am indoctrinated by logic.

Here let me try this way... before 9/11, how many bases were over seas? Let us start there and move forward.

Looking forward to reading your response.

[tvtimeout]

Also, could anyone please explain why I should vote for Romney?

[Hoot Gibson]

Also, could anyone please explain why I should vote for Romney?

Why do you keep asking this question when the explanation has already been made? You have made it clear that your mind is closed to alternatives to the unelectable candidate who you support and you know as well as we do that you are simply throwing away your vote, so why ask the rest of us to waste any more time discussing the election with you?

[TheRealThing]

When did I ever say anything like that... I could point to Rumsfield saying something like that but not me.

Is having this many bases the cost for me to have freedom...662 bases in foreign countries. Does this make me safe? Is that the starting point for this debate? I am indoctrinated by logic.

Here let me try this way... before 9/11, how many bases were over seas? Let us start there and move forward.

Looking forward to reading your response.

Yes

[tvtimeout]

I don't need to prove anything to you. You have demonstrated that your mind is closed and that you intend to waste a vote on a man who has no chance of effecting any kind of change because he has no chance of winning. Ron Paul's only hope of making any change in Washington is to influence the primary campaign and have some of his ideas incorporated into the Republican platform. When Romney says that he will sign a bill to repeal Obamacare, I believe him. The problem is that there may not be enough Republicans in the Senate to send him such a bill to sign. Still, Romney's chances of getting electing and at least nudging the federal government in the right direction are much better than the astronomical odds that Ron Paul will ever be president.

Do you ever ask yourself why Ron Paul runs for office as a Republican instead of running as a Libertarian? If not, then you should. His ideas are much more in line with the Libertarians, yet he remains a Republican. Why would he do that if he believed, as you say that you do, that there are no differences between the parties. The answer is that he knows something that you and so many other Paulistas fail to recognize. Paul's best change of changing the country for the better is to work from within Congress and members of the Libertarian Party never get that opportunity. Ron Paul would rather be in position to make changes than to be an ideologically pure Libertarian on the outside looking in. His supporters are not so wise.

This is how you responded to my question Hoot!!! Briliant!

[tvtimeout]

Yes

I disagree!!! I think it is because we have nuclear warheads with intercontinet missles...with a great airforce...

[tvtimeout]

Why do you keep asking this question when the explanation has already been made? You have made it clear that your mind is closed to alternatives to the unelectable candidate who you support and you know as well as we do that you are simply throwing away your vote, so why ask the rest of us to waste any more time discussing the election with you?

Please show me where the arguement has been made...please! Fox News must obey... lol:dudecomeon:

[Hoot Gibson]

Please show me where the arguement has been made...please! Fox News must obey... lol:dudecomeon:

I am assuming that you can review the thread yourself. If not, find a literate person who can read it to you. It is supporters like you who make it so challenging to respect Ron Paul's many fine qualities. At least he is smart enough to support a mainstream political organization in important national elections. His most enthusiastic fans are not nearly so bright.

[TheRealThing]

I disagree!!! I think it is because we have nuclear warheads with intercontinet missles ...with a great airforce...

If you mean, intercontinental missiles, you do realize that particular ordinance and those that are responsible for maintenance and tactics are regular Air Force, right? BTW, you think wrong. Our conventional forces and armament are what our enemies face on today's battlefield. We haven't dropped a nuke since WWII. Islamic Terrorists don't care a bit to take us on, ala jetliners flown into World Trade Centers, the Pentagon Building, or even the White House, in spite of our second to none, nuclear stockpile. But, this just demonstrates the shallowness of the thoughts that drive your isolationist rantings.

This is how you responded to my question Hoot!!! Briliant!

And you want to belittle the intellectual level of those that choose to respond to you on here? :please: Hoot and others have taken the time to point out the flaws in the talking point rhetoric you have posted in the past, to no avail.

[tvtimeout]

If you mean, intercontinental missiles, you do realize that particular ordinance and those that are responsible for maintenance and tactics are regular Air Force, right? BTW, you think wrong. Our conventional forces and armament are what our enemies face on today's battlefield. We haven't dropped a nuke since WWII. Islamic Terrorists don't care a bit to take us on, ala jetliners flown into World Trade Centers, the Pentagon Building, or even the White House, in spite of our second to none, nuclear stockpile. But, this just demonstrates the shallowness of the thoughts that drive your isolationist rantings.





And you want to belittle the intellectual level of those that choose to respond to you on here? :please: Hoot and others have taken the time to point out the flaws in the talking point rhetoric you have posted in the past, to no avail.

Quick question: Did the United States have a military presence in the middle east and around the world before 9/11?

I do realize it takes an airforce to maintain those things mentioned above so I must have a base in Germany to do that, or in Great Britian, or in Iraq or in Afganstan, Japan, and so on...

I have never said that we should not defend ourselves have I... no, just questioning why I must have military bases around the world.

Republicans talk about spending cuts until it deals with the military or some pet project of their own... Republicrats... I can not stand them!

[tvtimeout]

If you mean, intercontinental missiles, you do realize that particular ordinance and those that are responsible for maintenance and tactics are regular Air Force, right? BTW, you think wrong. Our conventional forces and armament are what our enemies face on today's battlefield. We haven't dropped a nuke since WWII. Islamic Terrorists don't care a bit to take us on, ala jetliners flown into World Trade Centers, the Pentagon Building, or even the White House, in spite of our second to none, nuclear stockpile. But, this just demonstrates the shallowness of the thoughts that drive your isolationist rantings.






And you want to belittle the intellectual level of those that choose to respond to you on here? :please: Hoot and others have taken the time to point out the flaws in the talking point rhetoric you have posted in the past, to no avail.

Hoot took a shot at me without ever answering the question... maybe you can why should I vote for Romney? What has his actions done to prove that he is a conservative... I know Romney Care, wait he balanced the budget of Mass. No he didn't do that... I know he is a strong moral man...that changes his views as the wind blows...wait "We Report, You Obey" has given me my marching orders, he is the only one that can beat Obama, they said this, they know, I must follow... Republicats here we come...

[Hoot Gibson]

[/B]


Hoot took a shot at me without ever answering the question... maybe you can why should I vote for Romney? What has his actions done to prove that he is a conservative... I know Romney Care, wait he balanced the budget of Mass. No he didn't do that... I know he is a strong moral man...that changes his views as the wind blows...wait "We Report, You Obey" has given me my marching orders, he is the only one that can beat Obama, they said this, they know, I must follow... Republicats here we come...

I answered your question repeatedly (as have others) and in very simple terms that anybody should be able to understand.

It is no surprise that Ron Paul's campaign has fallen on such hard times with so many supporters like you insulting those of us who generally support most of his positions. I am beginning to suspect that you are not really a Paul supporter at all. You don't seem to know as much about the candidate who you support as I do, which is why I suppose that you keep ignoring my question about why Ron Paul is a member of the Republican Party.

[TheRealVille]

[/B]


Hoot took a shot at me without ever answering the question... maybe you can why should I vote for Romney? What has his actions done to prove that he is a conservative... I know Romney Care, wait he balanced the budget of Mass. No he didn't do that... I know he is a strong moral man...that changes his views as the wind blows...wait "We Report, You Obey" has given me my marching orders, he is the only one that can beat Obama, they said this, they know, I must follow... Republicats here we come...

Haven't you figured out that if you don't agree with "the political geniuses" here on BGR, you are an "idiot"?

[TheRealThing]

Quick question: Did the United States have a military presence in the middle east and around the world before 9/11?

I do realize it takes an airforce to maintain those things mentioned above so I must have a base in Germany to do that, or in Great Britian, or in Iraq or in Afganstan, Japan, and so on...

I have never said that we should not defend ourselves have I... no, just questioning why I must have military bases around the world.

Republicans talk about spending cuts until it deals with the military or some pet project of their own... Republicrats... I can not stand them!

Maybe if you could stick to one point long enough to defend it, you'd be able to score a few points around here. You said this---- "I disagree!!! I think it is because we have nuclear warheads with intercontinet missles (whatever those are) ...with a great airforce..."



I pointed out that having the world's foremost nuclear arsenal sitting around at our disposal didn't in any way deter the terrorist assault on our nation on 9/11. Therefore, your observation with regard to our nuclear deterrent only means something to other nuclear Countries like Russia and Red China, and then, only in time of nuclear war. Any other scenario one might reasonably concieve with regard to armed conflict would entail the use of conventional means. All the other countries of military where-with-all, in the world are very aware of our military presence around the world thus, the US deterrent is formidable. Not many would try us as a result. So again, yes, those bases are necessary. Only the Islamic extremists in the arab world believe they will go to heaven if they murder 1 to infinity infidels and, are therefore ready to die to that end. No deterrent would mean anything to them because dying to them means paradise.

[tvtimeout]

I answered your question repeatedly (as have others) and in very simple terms that anybody should be able to understand.It is no surprise that Ron Paul's campaign has fallen on such hard times with so many supporters like you insulting those of us who generally support most of his positions. I am beginning to suspect that you are not really a Paul supporter at all. You don't seem to know as much about the candidate who you support as I do, which is why I suppose that you keep ignoring my question about why Ron Paul is a member of the Republican Party.

Where? Just use the quote button for me and bold it for me.

[tvtimeout]

I answered your question repeatedly (as have others) and in very simple terms that anybody should be able to understand.

It is no surprise that Ron Paul's campaign has fallen on such hard times with so many supporters like you insulting those of us who generally support most of his positions. I am beginning to suspect that you are not really a Paul supporter at all. You don't seem to know as much about the candidate who you support as I do, which is why I suppose that you keep ignoring my question about why Ron Paul is a member of the Republican Party.

I answered that question in another thread yesterday.

[tvtimeout]

Maybe if you could stick to one point long enough to defend it, you'd be able to score a few points around here. You said this---- "I disagree!!! I think it is because we have nuclear warheads with intercontinet missles (whatever those are) ...with a great airforce..."



I pointed out that having the world's foremost nuclear arsenal sitting around at our disposal didn't in any way deter the terrorist assault on our nation on 9/11. Therefore, your observation with regard to our nuclear deterrent only means something to other nuclear Countries like Russia and Red China, and then, only in time of nuclear war. Any other scenario one might reasonably concieve with regard to armed conflict would entail the use of conventional means. All the other countries of military where-with-all, in the world are very aware of our military presence around the world thus, the US deterrent is formidable. Not many would try us as a result. So again, yes, those bases are necessary. Only the Islamic extremists in the arab world believe they will go to heaven if they murder 1 to infinity infidels and, are therefore ready to die to that end. No deterrent would mean anything to them because dying to them means paradise.

So your position is that we keep the military bases around the world 600+ so that we have a deterrent. Nuclear Weapons are only a deterrent to Russia and China and no other countries. I think I got your position.

Other questions to consider:

Could we consolidate some of these bases?

Which one is a greater threat to our liberty and freedom... the possible threat of some country bombing us or our massive debt?

[Hoot Gibson]

Where? Just use the quote button for me and bold it for me.

Just use the search button instead. You just don't like the answer to the question. Stop wasting my time.

Romney will be a (much) lesser of two evils in November. Obama is a wrecking ball who is destroying what is left of our free market economy - a system that true libertarians hold dear. Ron Paul is irrelevant in this campaign. A write-in vote for Paul or vote for anybody else who has no chance of winning is a vote for the (much) greater of two evils from a libertarian perspective. I don't believe that you are a libertarian because there is nothing more important to libertarians than the free market and personal liberty and Obama is working to place shackles on both.

It is nice when a candidate reflects all of your personal beliefs but when that is not the case, then voting against the greatest threat to liberty is preferable to simply throwing one's hands up and doing nothing.

This is exactly the point that I, as well as others, have made in many posts on this subject. If you don't like the answer, then that is your problem. Just stop lying by saying that nobody has explained why you should vote for Romney.

[Hoot Gibson]

I answered that question in another thread yesterday.

So, Ron Paul is a pragmatist who understands that his best chance to bring about change is to work within the party that best reflects his set of beliefs. Yet, you support Ron Paul, ridicule the Republican Party, and claim that there are no differences between the two parties. Do you think that Ron Paul's decision to spend his political career as a member of the GOP was simply an arbitrary decision? Would he be equally as comfortable in the Democratic Party? Do you expect him to throw away his vote by abstaining or voting for a presidential candidate who is not a member of the Republican Party?

It sounds like you, like many other Ron Paul fanatics, are dismissing the good example that he has set for you.

[tvtimeout]

Just use the search button instead. You just don't like the answer to the question. Stop wasting my time.

Romney will be a (much) lesser of two evils in November. Obama is a wrecking ball who is destroying what is left of our free market economy - a system that true libertarians hold dear. Ron Paul is irrelevant in this campaign. A write-in vote for Paul or vote for anybody else who has no chance of winning is a vote for the (much) greater of two evils from a libertarian perspective. I don't believe that you are a libertarian because there is nothing more important to libertarians than the free market and personal liberty and Obama is working to place shackles on both.

It is nice when a candidate reflects all of your personal beliefs but when that is not the case, then voting against the greatest threat to liberty is preferable to simply throwing one's hands up and doing nothing.

This is exactly the point that I, as well as others, have made in many posts on this subject. If you don't like the answer, then that is your problem. Just stop lying by saying that nobody has explained why you should vote for Romney.

So the reason to vote for Romney is that he is lesser of an evil than Obama. I would contend that Ron Paul is lesseer than an evil than Obama. Therefore, there is no difference between Romney and Paul. Correct?

[tvtimeout]

So, Ron Paul is a pragmatist who understands that his best chance to bring about change is to work within the party that best reflects his set of beliefs. Yet, you support Ron Paul, ridicule the Republican Party, and claim that there are no differences between the two parties. Do you think that Ron Paul's decision to spend his political career as a member of the GOP was simply an arbitrary decision? Would he be equally as comfortable in the Democratic Party? Do you expect him to throw away his vote by abstaining or voting for a presidential candidate who is not a member of the Republican Party?

It sounds like you, like many other Ron Paul fanatics, are dismissing the good example that he has set for you.

That is why he continues to Ron so he can have a say at the Republican Convention. He has had great influence with the start of the Tea Party. However, the republicrats, hate this guy. They hide behind the idea of the Republican Party, they have hijacked what the party once stood for. Ron reminds the party of what it once was... I call out Republicrats including Hal Rodgers of the 5th Congressional District. We need term limits, but you would never get a Republicrat to agree to that concept even though Republicans are suppossed to be for limited government. Same points can be made about the military.

The Republican Primary is about this ideas coming to the front. Republicans have lost their way because they are set on the idea that Romney can beat Obama.

However, my question who said that any other canidate could not beat Obama...I know "we report you obey".

[TheRealThing]

So your position is that we keep the military bases around the world 600+ so that we have a deterrent. Nuclear Weapons are only a deterrent to Russia and China and no other countries. (1) I think I got your position.

Other questions to consider:

(2) Could we consolidate some of these bases?

(3) Which one is a greater threat to our liberty and freedom... the possible threat of some country bombing us or our massive debt?

(1) I'd like to think so, but I doubt it.

(2) Let me know once you get a high level position in the Dept. of Defense.

(3) This is part of what you don't seem to get. We don't have the luxury of picking only one of the two to concentrate our efforts on. But, here is the logical order of priorities; first- we protect our country, our own sovereignty is first order of business, we have to make sure we have a nation to worry about right? second- live within a managable deficit, it's okay to borrow some money as long as we can justify doing so when projected budgets demonstrate national liquidity to that end.

Your charge that there are no differences in the two parties is rediculous. Name one republican congress that has failed to present a yearly federal budget as law requires, much less four in a row. To date, only the Democrats have shown the nerve to run roughshod over federal law. Democrats are purposely avoiding a federal budget because the know they can't come close to justifying doing so either by accounting terms or ethical terms. On a side note, you haven't come close to justifying your contempt for the conservative principles Ron Paul has spent a notable political career espousing.

[TheRealThing]

[QUOTE=tvtimeout;

However, my question who said that any other canidate could not beat Obama...I know "we report you obey".[/QUOTE]




I've read thousands of posts on here. I don't think I've ever read even one where the poster was extolling the virtues of FOX News. There are very few FOX News Hosts that seem to try to present a middle of the road view with regard to news casting. One is Bill O'Reilly, Van Susteren tries but, her left leaning roots show through pretty often.

I for one would like to see a little more courage from FOX News but, the truth is they are worried about ratings and therefore have quite a few liberal contributors throught the 24 hour news day. I actually do watch FOX enough to know. I can tell you this, it's a far cry from the conservative free-for-all you try to portray it as.

[Hoot Gibson]

So the reason to vote for Romney is that he is lesser of an evil than Obama. I would contend that Ron Paul is lesseer than an evil than Obama. Therefore, there is no difference between Romney and Paul. Correct?

No, you are incorrect. There is a huge difference between Romney and Paul. Paul will fall go to the RNC well over 1,000 delegates short of having enough to get the GOP nomination. Romney will go to the convention with enough delegates to secure the nomination with a comfortable margin. Paul has zero chance of becoming president. Romney has roughly a 50-50 chance of becoming president, as does the worst incumbent president ever to run for a second term.

If I still had an opportunity to vote for Santorum in a primary election, I would do so to send a message to Romney. If I had voted in the Virginia primary, which I skipped because only Romney and Paul were on the ballot, I would have voted for Paul to send the same message to Romney. However, there is no way that I will be casting a protest vote in the general election and help return a true socialist to the White House for a second term.

Ron Paul, as President would be the lesser of two evils if the option was Obama, but that will not be an option come November. I will be surprised if Ron Paul does not endorse Romney at the convention before or during a speech in which he articulates his positions to the delegates.

In the 2008 campaign, RINO John McCain and his hatchet man, Mike Huckabee. treated Ron Paul very badly during several debates. I have been disappointed with Romney's campaign this year but he has treated Paul with respect, just as he did during the 2008 campaign, and Paul has been respectful of Romney in return.

I could vote for myself in November because of my own libertarian views but my chances of becoming president are about the same as Ron Paul's.

[tvtimeout]

(1) I'd like to think so, but I doubt it.

(2) Let me know once you get a high level position in the Dept. of Defense.

(3) This is part of what you don't seem to get. We don't have the luxury of picking only one of the two to concentrate our efforts on. But, here is the logical order of priorities; first- we protect our country, our own sovereignty is first order of business, we have to make sure we have a nation to worry about right? second- live within a managable deficit, it's okay to borrow [B]some money as long as we can justify doing so when projected budgets demonstrate national liquidity to that end. [/B]Your charge that there are no differences in the two parties is rediculous. Name one republican congress that has failed to present a yearly federal budget as law requires, much less four in a row. To date, only the Democrats have shown the nerve to run roughshod over federal law. Democrats are purposely avoiding a federal budget because the know they can't come close to justifying doing so either by accounting terms or ethical terms. On a side note, you haven't come close to justifying your contempt for the conservative principles Ron Paul has spent a notable political career espousing.

Why do you say that I don't get this... I just contend that 600+ bases is over kill. I feel that the military industrial complex that General Eisnhower warned about has taken over and I think it is over kill.

Nationalizing banks, bailouts of auto industry, bailout of wall street, all on the people's dime, not a private solution.

Which party does this sound like?

Which party did this? Which party had control of the house, senate, and Presidency when this took place?

If it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, looks like a duck. It must be a duck.

[tvtimeout]

No, you are incorrect. There is a huge difference between Romney and Paul. Paul will fall go to the RNC well over 1,000 delegates short of having enough to get the GOP nomination. Romney will go to the convention with enough delegates to secure the nomination with a comfortable margin. Paul has zero chance of becoming president. Romney has roughly a 50-50 chance of becoming president, as does the worst incumbent president ever to run for a second term.

If I still had an opportunity to vote for Santorum in a primary election, I would do so to send a message to Romney. If I had voted in the Virginia primary, which I skipped because only Romney and Paul were on the ballot, I would have voted for Paul to send the same message to Romney. However, there is no way that I will be casting a protest vote in the general election and help return a true socialist to the White House for a second term.

Ron Paul, as President would be the lesser of two evils if the option was Obama, but that will not be an option come November. I will be surprised if Ron Paul does not endorse Romney at the convention before or during a speech in which he articulates his positions to the delegates.

In the 2008 campaign, RINO John McCain and his hatchet man, Mike Huckabee. treated Ron Paul very badly during several debates. I have been disappointed with Romney's campaign this year but he has treated Paul with respect, just as he did during the 2008 campaign, and Paul has been respectful of Romney in return.

I could vote for myself in November because of my own libertarian views but my chances of becoming president are about the same as Ron Paul's.

We will see. What is it about Romney that gets you passionate, what does he stand for that makes you go gee I should vote for this man? Judging by your statements there is not one policy matter that makes you go wow, I am voting for him. Whereas, Ron Paul has policy that you have said you have agreed with, that is very telling.