Why can't we just mind our own business and stop occupying other sovereign nations?

Why would you respond like that, Amy? What purpose does that serve?

Amy, we have been reminding them of our savagery for quite a long time. It started back in the 50s when our CIA helped to overthrow Mossadeqh. Then, our government installed a U.S. puppet, the Shah. Don't you see these are the things that gave rise to the Islamic crazies. When the Iranian people overthrew the Shah, that is when Khomeini came to power. It is time we faced that it is our government's meddling that caused the situation we have now. By the way, I used to think as you are. But, then I checked the facts. They're not pretty, Amy.

Davole, you are badly misunderstanding. Paul would not legalize drugs. Aren't you aware that all 50 states have their own drug laws on the books? All Paul would do is get the federal government out of it. That is what he means by "decriminalizing" drugs. States would still have their own drug laws and they would enforce them as they saw fit. But, it also means that if a state's government, like California, wanted to allow medical marijuana to cancer patients whose doctors prescribed it to them, then the federal government would keep their nose out of it. Conservatives used to believe in state's rights. Don't we still?

Why is it that so many foreign policy experts agree with him, then? To name just a few: http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2012/01/03/former-cia-agent-michael-scheuer-endorses-ron-paul/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AP9K8Igsqms& http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QDIxhaEPN0& http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/11/foreign-policy-experts-agree-with-ron-pauls-controversial-foreign-policy/ Ron Paul discusses it here and names others: http://www.youtube.com/watch?f&v=Yipv-OqFiAQ

Why is it that so many foreign policy experts agree with him, then? To name just a few: http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2012/01/03/former-cia-agent-michael-scheuer-endorses-ron-paul/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AP9K8Igsqms& http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QDIxhaEPN0& http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/11/foreign-policy-experts-agree-with-ron-pauls-controversial-foreign-policy/ Ron Paul discusses it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?f&v=Yipv-OqFiAQ

Any libertarianism that had been in the Party, left with Reagan. And even then, we were in love with what he SAID, not with what he actually did. Seeing as he increased the size and scope of government a great deal. Apparently, you do not realize a basic tenet of libertarianism. It is to look at people as individuals, rather than as belonging to groups. That each and every one of us have the same individual liberty. So, you see, your argument claiming Paul is bigoted is just ridiculous. If you need more proof, you should go review his record. I realize it's easier to keep repeating what the MSM tells you, but have you ever stopped to consider why they are trying their best to smear this man? Do they have a vested interest?

Come off it, Marcos. There isn't a racist bone in Paul's body and anyone who has taken any time at all to review his record, knows it. Heck, the head of the Texas NAACP even spoke up for him. Sheesh.

Why do you think Paul is a fruitcake? He is the most conservative member of Congress.

Santorum: Voted to double the size of the Department of Education Voted over and over for foreign aid Voted for No Child Left Behind Listed as most corrupt member of Senate in 2006. http://www.citizensforethics.org/index.php/press/entry/crew-releases-second-annual-most-corrupt-members-of-congress-report/ -------------- Sounds like a big government liberal to me.