If Ron Paul was for the war, would you still vote for him?

[paulitics]

If ron paul stayed the same on every issue except the war, would you still vote for him?

[speciallyblend]

I VOTED YES,because if we were at war,when Ron Paul is elected,then he would of won after he declared war first,making it legal;) and he wouldnt of passed the patriot act;)

[silverhandorder]

I honestly worry more about my liberties and money then the war. It is just the war itself is bankrupting us. If Ron was president he would not let it get to that point. But he is anti-war and I can support that too!

[reduen]

I voted no but that is assuming that there would be ab anti-war candidate....

[paulitics]

I'm voting no with hesitation, because I would not trust Paul on much of anything else if he was pro-preemptive war. To have supported this war, is to have supported a lie.

[Slugg]

The war is what it is. I think we have bigger problems in Washington. Some of which probably contributed to us going to war in the first place.

So, if Ron's stance was the same but he held a 'pro war' position; I'd probably be just as excited about him. It's touchy though, it depends on why he was pro war. If he was pro-war to stay on the 'offensive against terrorism' I'd have a hard time believing him. But, if he was pro Iraq because we made a huge debacle of it and needed to verify solidarity before we left; I'd stay with him. (I almost wish this was his position, just so he wouldn't get so much heat for being 'isolationist'. However, I realize that this position may be great politically, it is horrible in practice).

Long story short, the war issue is secondary.

[wolv275]

This is a trapping questing, because Ron would make sure we go to a war the people support, and its explicitly constitutionally declared through congress. ;)

So if he was for the war we would still be warring with Osama

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

This is an illogical question. The events are mutually exclusive. You can not be both pro-imperialism, and pro-liberty, at the same time. Being pro-Iraq would not be consistent with his stance on other issues.

[FunkBuddha]

No, because if he was for the war then that would be a violation of his Constitutional principles and that would make him a fraud in my book.

[austin356]

Yes though I would not be on this forum right now.

[Ninja Homer]

If he was for an unconstitutional war, he wouldn't be Ron Paul.

If this country followed the Constitution strictly, it wouldn't matter if a president was for or against a war. It isn't part of the president's job description. It is congress' job to be for or against a war, and if war is declared then it's the president's job to carry it out.

Loaded question - I'm skipping the poll. :D

[max]

thats like asking "Would you want your daughter to marry a mass murderer if he was a good husband in all other aspects.?"

[Joey Wahoo]

Yes, reluctantly. The principle of lesser-of-two-evils would come into play.

I vote in Florida. In 2000 my wife and I voted for Harry Browne, and the entire election (and the very course of history) would've been different if a handful of us had voted for Al Gore instead. (To be fair, if forced to choose then, I would've picked Bush over Gore). So in 2004 I held my nose and voted for John Kerry. The only reason I did that was because I felt that we absolutely had to end this disastrous foreign policy--even at the risk of our liberties at home.

So I might very well vote for a democrat opposed to the war over a conservative who favored it--if that were my only choice. But if the candidate was a pro-war Ron Paul (i shudder at the thought) then I'd probably choose Ron, just because he's so good on every other issue that I'd consider him the lesser of two evils.

[TheConstitutionLives]

yes. b/c he'd still be the most founding father-like of anyone in DC. He's so much better than everyone else that he can afford to slip some and still be the best.

[Cindy]

I'm voting no with hesitation, because I would not trust Paul on much of anything else if he was pro-preemptive war. To have supported this war, is to have supported a lie.


Yup! Anyone anyone with power and influence supporting this war is serving and protecting special interests groups, not the Iraqis or Americans.

I wouldn't be able to trust him with anything else. I voted NO.

The best about Paul is, he is against it because he knows why it is wrong for more reasons then it just being unconstitutional. He knows that that the Private Federal Reserve banks loaning the money to fund it, Military Industrial Complex and the Oil companies are being buffed out from it. He also understands that our foriegn occupations are causing hate against us.

I think the Dems against it besides Kucinich and Gravel, are just pandering to the anti-war voters and will carry on with Bush's plan if elected.

[reduen]

The war is what it is. I think we have bigger problems in Washington. Some of which probably contributed to us going to war in the first place.

So, if Ron's stance was the same but he held a 'pro war' position; I'd probably be just as excited about him. It's touchy though, it depends on why he was pro war. If he was pro-war to stay on the 'offensive against terrorism' I'd have a hard time believing him. But, if he was pro Iraq because we made a huge debacle of it and needed to verify solidarity before we left; I'd stay with him. (I almost wish this was his position, just so he wouldn't get so much heat for being 'isolationist'. However, I realize that this position may be great politically, it is horrible in practice).

Long story short, the war issue is secondary.


With all due respect, this is a very insensitive response. Imagine carrying pieces of your children around with nowhere to turn and then tell me if the war is a secondary issue!

You like some others, may be able to make little of these facts of war and chalk it up to just unavoidable collateral damage. I however, can not do this ....

Very sincerely,

Chris R.

[SewrRatt]

This is like asking if you'd let your kids watch Sesame Street if it was hardcore porn.

[fletcher]

He would still be the only small government conservative that is against government spending, at least domestically, so yes. Universal health care is my greatest fear, and it might even come from the Republicans.

[pcosmar]

If ron paul stayed the same on every issue except the war, would you still vote for him?
What War?
I do not remember any war being declared.
Do you mean the "War on Terrorism". That is a war on a nebulous concept, not on a country.
I voted no.

[disinter]

No.

[LibertyOfOne]

The war is costly and we need to axe it and get control of the other fiscal problems too.

[American]

The war was secondary for me anyways, I'm more concerned with Illegal immigration, North American Union, High Taxes, Growth of Govt, My civil liberties being infringed upon, The Monetary system, The Economy.

Ron Paul is the only one that talks about those....

I see it as once we harmonize with Mexico and Canada and use a single currency there is no going back. Also the economy, we are in the early stages of a recession by all the experts accounts, we cant keep spending like this or were done.

[Green Mountain Boy]

Absolutely not. It's a matter of principle for me...I cannot support anyone who supports such a great evil as the Iraq war.

[davidhperry]

If he was for an unconstitutional war, he wouldn't be Ron Paul.


This person makes a great point. The way the poll is worded will make the answers misleading.

We all know Ron Paul to be trustworthy and to put principals above above ambition - we wouldn't be on these boards if we didn't. If he were to support the war, then it must be the right thing to do. Otherwise, it wouldn't be Ron. Does that make sense?

[American]

WOW, most people say its the war...interesting.

but no comments on why its the most important issue.

[Green Mountain Boy]

WOW, most people say its the war...interesting.

but no comments on why its the most important issue.

I don't think it's necessarily the most important issue. It's just that I coudn't trust someone who supported the war to make correct judgements on anything else.

[Paulitician]

The hypothetical is not possible because he wouldn't be able to cut spending, cut taxes, limit the size & scope of government, bring our troops to protect our borders, change the monetary system, get rid of the income tax, reform welfare etc. and he wouldn't want to nation build because it goes against his philosophy of personal liberty and would instead try to lead by example (that seems to be the only argument left, if we leave there will be chaos!).

I chose yes but now I realize it was a mistake. If he were for this war then that'd mean he believed that we were over there because they threated our national security or something; he'd have to fall for the neo-con/imperial bullshit.

[hells_unicorn]

I voted no because being pro-Iraq War is in direct contradiction with the concept of limited government and fiscal accountability.

[speciallyblend]

I VOTED YES,because if we were at war,when Ron Paul is elected,then he would of won after he declared war first,making it legal;) and he wouldnt of passed the patriot act;)

I voted yes but gave a good reply on why it would end or at least be legal under Ron Paul,once we declare war . All this debate now should of happened before we ever went into Iraq.

[ghemminger]

test

[fourameuphoria]

Honestly, if he had a McCain-like stance, I wouldn't mind. McCain was against the gross mishandling of the Rumsfeld-helmed War, and I'm sure he has a somewhat informed stance on the surge, in the same way Ron Paul, as a doctor, has an informed stance on abortion. The most important issue for me is marijuana legalization, this election. Of course, that's why I label it as "the most important issue for me", and not "the most important issue for us" =)

[jmdrake]

No for reasons already mentioned. Long before Ron Paul decided to run I made a personal decision only to support a candidate that was anti the Iraq war from the start, against the unPatriot Act and against the department of Homeland inSecurity. Since then I've added being against gun control (which rules out Kucinich) and being agaisnt FEMA (which rules out almost everybody else). There are plenty of other "pro war" candidates someone could chose from.

[SWATH]

Yes, because upholding the constitution is more important than the war.

[hard@work]

I don't believe you can be "for the war" unless you're a complete idiot or psychotic racist bloodthirsty thug. If Ron Paul was for anything he'd be for a responsible handling of the situation which is what the other candidates try to sell us (as a load of crap with gold plating).

I would not vote for him if he lied to us like they do, which is really the crux of the issue.

[smtwngrl]

If Ron Paul was for pre-emptive war, he wouldn't be Ron Paul.

The thing is, increasing aggression abroad and attack of personal liberties at home are two sides of the same coin.

[Bossobass]

Having survived the VietNam fiasco, and seeing that we are in the same situation with a couple of nouns changed (Communsits=Terrorists, Southeast Asia=Middle East, Viet Cong=Islamo-Fascists, etc.), I've been able to pull back from the situation and see a bigger picture.

Besides raking in untold profit from sales of arms, reconstruction and interest on debts funded by money that is created out of thin air, there is an effort involved to secure the One World dream of the central bankers.

Japan was conquered by an unconditional surrender. It was then on to Korea, then VietNam, though these were called 'police actions' because Congress would never have declared war on Korea so soon after WWII, and the police action through the UN seemed to work like a charm for these banker pukes.

Europe was conquered by mutually assured distruction, which was simply a scheme to allow the titanic military build up in peacetime with the consent of the people.

After the fall of the USSR and the wall came down, it was rather easy to unite Europe into the EU under one currency (despite all the pundits who proclaimed it would be impossible to imagine let alone accomplish).

The dollar's tie to gold was severed and forced into it's current ties to worldwide oil sales just before the end of VietNam, which allowed the huge deficit spending by Reagan and Bush I, which was almost exclusively spent on building the largest and most sophisticated military organization the world has ever known.

They next secured China by economic means by showing China that if they didn't get with the program, the entire Pacific Rim would eventually dwarf them. Once China was on board, the monopolies of auto making, steel production, ship building, textiles and the rest of the industrial sector moved out of the US and into China.

This industrial base relocation happened at an astounding pace during the Clinton years. The tech bubble kept enough Americans getting rich to distract attention from the move, save for the millions of Americans who lost their factory jobs.

So, now it's on to the final stages of threatening and/or attacking Russia, China, North Korea and the entire ME through permanent bases that are within striking distance of all of those countries.

These permanent bases in Iraq are only part of the strategy. These bastards have begun construction of a 'Missle Defense System' on Russia's border at the same time they've been quietly expanding the bases in South Korea (search YT vids for the rioting by S Koreans against these base expansions...pretty amazing stuff that never gets on the 'News').

While this consolidation of power, industrial base and natural resources takes place in the middle and far east, the US Constitution is quietly dismantled (for one startling example, the continuity of Government section of the Homeland Security Act is not published because it's stamped 'top secret'. The committee on Homeland Security Chair has requested a closed session review the plans and the White House has rejected the request) and it's borders quietly erased while the ports are moved to Mexico (where CAFTA will eliminate all current tarrifs on goods delivered to North America from Central America) and a super highway is quietly being built to expedite the flow of goods.

Sorry for the extremely long (although extremely condensed) answer but it explains why the Iraq war is at the top of my list.

The Iraq war is directly tied to the bankruptcy of the US Treasury, the loss of the US industrial base, the consolidation of the world's energy reserves, the EU, the NAU, CAFTA, the decimation of the US Constitution, the fall of the dollar, illegal alien invasion and NWO.

Nothing else really matters, IMHO. If they are allowed to continue as planned in the ME, there are no other issues on the table that make sense to fight.

Get on the horn to your Congressmen and Senators to STOP THE FUNDING of war in the ME. Money is at the heart of the plan. Cut off the funds and you kill the program. Organize to vote all who vote for war out in 2008, and let them know NOW that you will.

Bosso

[Slugg]

If Ron Paul was for pre-emptive war, he wouldn't be Ron Paul.

The thing is, increasing aggression abroad and attack of personal liberties at home are two sides of the same coin.

Yeah, that's why it would be tricky to stay behind him. It all depends

[Original_Intent]

I had to say no, because the biggest attraction of RP is his integrity and second is his intelligence. If he was for the war he would be severely lacking in one of those two categories.

[PaleoForPaul]

I don't believe you can be "for the war" unless you're a complete idiot or psychotic racist bloodthirsty thug.

What exactly is racist about it?

[JMann]

I am by no means anti war but I support a much different direction in domestic and foreign policy and for wars to be declared by congress. Paul's domestic policy is far more important to me than his stance on the war.

[apropos]

Paul's domestic policy is far more important to me than his stance on the war.

Same here.

[axiomata]

Yes, because I know that because of the way that he reasons to the correct positions on other issues he would eventually come around on the war. ;)

[PaleoForPaul]

Yes. I would be for Ron Paul, if he were supporting the Iraq war.

The war in Iraq isn't even that huge of an issue to me personally. I think it was probably unwise to go in. Most wars where a nation does not attack nor declare war on us end badly for us. Also, at this point the war is like welfare. We are paying for, and fighting for the Iraqi people to gain freedom and democracy while they seem unwilling to work for it themselves.

The key issue with me as a conservative is curtailing the growth of government. None of the other Republicans come close to Ron Paul's stance against entitlements.

The secondary issue for me is immigration. While the war on terror is a politically loaded term at this point, I do think it is silly to get up and give a speech on the 'islamic terrorist threat' but not want to keep track of who is entering and exiting this country.

Futhermore, you can not have unlimited immigration along with unlimited social benefits. That is a path to poverty for any nation.

Finally, what I love about Dr Paul is his strict adherance to the constitution, and his other conservative stances (pro-2nd amendment, anti-abortion, etc) and his freedom message.

While Dr. Paul plays up the Iraq war in his speeches to Republicans, perhaps for differentiation purposes, I often wonder why he doesn't more strongly state his conservative credentials, especially on taxes, abortion, and guns. With Rudolph Thompson McRomney running, he actually out-flanks all of them on the right wing, that is if he ever gets to talk about that in a debate.

[JMann]

I don't believe you can be "for the war" unless you're a complete idiot or psychotic racist bloodthirsty thug. If Ron Paul was for anything he'd be for a responsible handling of the situation which is what the other candidates try to sell us (as a load of crap with gold plating).

I would not vote for him if he lied to us like they do, which is really the crux of the issue.


Well then you are a fool.

[maggiebott]

What a bunch morons I see on this thread. You would vote for a man who is FOR the war? We have killed over a million people which not one of you have pointed out, for absolutely no reason.
Over 4 million have been displaced and you would keep this war going?

[PaleoForPaul]

What a bunch morons I see on this thread.

Obviously, anyone who doesn't hold your views on the war must be a moron, right?


You would vote for a man who is FOR the war? We have killed over a million people

Were you there counting?


which not one of you have pointed out, for absolutely no reason.

There was reason, it's just a question of if it was good reason.


Over 4 million have been displaced and you would keep this war going?

To vote for Dr. Paul? Yeah I would.

[smtwngrl]

Sorry for the extremely long (although extremely condensed) answer but it explains why the Iraq war is at the top of my list.

The Iraq war is directly tied to the bankruptcy of the US Treasury, the loss of the US industrial base, the consolidation of the world's energy reserves, the EU, the NAU, CAFTA, the decimation of the US Constitution, the fall of the dollar, illegal alien invasion and NWO.

Nothing else really matters, IMHO. If they are allowed to continue as planned in the ME, there are no other issues on the table that make sense to fight.
Bosso

Wow, excellent post!

[LibertyOfOne]

I could not vote for him if he supported the war. The war is just another form of welfare. In this case a type of welfare that kills.

[Kregener]

No.

If he couldn't be honest about the "war", then why would I trust him about anything else?

[allyinoh]

I don't really like the options and this is my reasoning...

If Ron Paul supported the war then that would mean that the war was justified. He would never support a war like the Iraq war so if he had supported it, then I feel it would mean that the war was right.

So I cant' really choose either one because they don't fit my reasoning.

[catwoman]

I don't really like the options and this is my reasoning...

If Ron Paul supported the war then that would mean that the war was justified. He would never support a war like the Iraq war so if he had supported it, then I feel it would mean that the war was right.

So I cant' really choose either one because they don't fit my reasoning.

Exactly!! I agree with the above.

[Patriot]

Yes, I would vote for Ron Paul. Ron Paul's main issue is constitutional government. If we had a constitutional government, we would not be in the war to begin with.

[Hurricane Bruiser]

I voted yes because I value economic and personal liberties at home very much and no one other than Ron Paul seems to think like I do on those issues. As to the war, Afghanistan initially made logical sense, and initially I supported the Iraq war even though both were not declared properly. I could support Ron Paul if he was for a more nuanced Iraq policy of not immediately pulling out and instead having a more gradual withdrawal. But our troop deployment all over the world in our "empire" I have a real problem with and want a candidate that addresses foreign policy in the future like Ron Paul does.

I do know that if an authoritarian like Ghouliani were to win the Republican nomination I would either write in Ron Paul or hold my nose and vote Democrat or possibly some other 3rd party candidate. Most likely write Ron Paul in because no other vote is worth it.

[SWATH]

The alternative would be to vote for the dems, i.e. Hillary (if you assume that she is really anti-war), and that would be to end the war AND the Republic, she would decimate the Constitution and that is not worth any single issue. I would rather have the war but still have our constitutional republic, but the question is loaded because they cannot, in reality, co-exist. It is a good thing that he isn't pro-war because that might create an anti-matter singularity and the very fabric of the space-time continuum would cease to exist.

[they walked in line]

No.

Quite simply, if Ron Paul were in favor of the Iraq war, he wouldn't be Ron Paul. The thing that I respect the most about Dr. Paul is his intellectual consistency; his foreign and domestic policies are merely two sides of the same coin.

[0zzy]

Like Ron Paul says, everything is connected to foreign policy.

[ksuguy]

Yes, his domestic stances are far more important to me than the war. I don't agree with the war, but to be honest it is only a minor concern for me.

[Buzz]

Honestly, I would, because I like so many of his other positions so much. However, I wouldn't be nearly as fanatical about him.

[they walked in line]

Paul's domestic policy is far more important to me than his stance on the war.

I see a lot of people saying this, but with all due respect, I don't get it.

If someone claims to be in favor of limited, Constitutional government on the domestic front, yet has no problem with running an empire abroad, isn't that a bit... inconsistent? Not only is war the biggest, most expansive government program of them all, but its effects are almost always felt most strongly right here at home.

[bobmurph]

I see a lot of people saying this, but with all due respect, I don't get it.

If someone claims to be in favor of limited, Constitutional government on the domestic front, yet has no problem with running an empire abroad, isn't that a bit... inconsistent? Not only is war the biggest, most expansive government program of them all, but its effects are almost always felt most strongly right here at home.

Certainly, if he were for the war then he would lack consistency in his policitcal ideology. The consistency of his positions on all issues with one logical ideology is perhaps his biggest strength. It is logical that if you believe in less domestic government intervention then you should believe in less government intervention in foreign affairs as well. Ron Paul is the only candidate who has a policy that is logical and consistent for every issue.

That being said, if he did support the Iraq war, then his ideology would not be consistent....but none of the other conservative candidates have consistent ideology anyways...so I would still vote for him.

I think most of the people who say YES would tend to be conservatives & people who say NO would tend to be liberal. The way I see it there are 3 main camps of RP supporters. 1. Many of us were attracted Ron Paul at first by his domestic policy, and had to adjust to his non-intervention foreign policy. 2. Another camp are the people who were attracted to him based on his opposition to the Iraq war and I'm sure they had to adjust to his domestic policy. 3. Finally, the libertarian camp is attracted by the overall message and has to adjust to certain policies (i.e. abortion).

1s probably vote yes. 2s probably vote no. 3s are probably split.

[MicroBalrog]

If ron paul stayed the same on every issue except the war, would you still vote for him?

I'm pro-war.

[McDermit]

No. I'd probably be supporting Kucinich or a 3rd party candidate.

[yaz]

Kucinich issued an anti-gun bill the DAY AFTER the virginia tech shootings. No thanks for that guy.

I would vote for Obama if Ron Paul was pro-war. Simply because he was smart enough to vote against the Iraq war in 2002, he seems like a more honest candidate, and a lot of other good things.

If Ron Paul could convince me that this war was justified though I would still vote for him. But there's no way he could. I might still vote for him but this hypothetical is just one of many variables of his persona that could change. If he turned pro-war I have to assume a lot of other things.

[john_anderson_ii]

Ron Paul wouldn't be Ron Paul if he supported the war. He would be someone completely different, with different views on what the role of government should be. He can't keep the values he keeps and still support the war. Libertarian views and this war are mutually exclusive. So no, I couldn't support him if he was for the war, because he'd just be another Romney with less money.

[UCFGavin]

deciding issue for me. i voted for the war and now regret it every day. i want someone that is a better person than myself.

[goldenequity]

With GOP Alan Keyes now running...... you now have a Constitutional Hawk in the fray.....and will dilute the Pro-war voting base even further.....which should help Ron Paul in the primaries.

He will attract NO educated Ron Paul supporters but MAY further brain wash POTENTIAL converts to Ron Paul.

With Fred Thompson and now Keyes.....we're back to 10 GOP candidates in the running again.

He will be at the Florida Values Voter debate and will most certainly be in the upcoming Maryland NPR debate focusing on Civil Rights / Black issues and hosted by fellow black Tavis Smiley.

Its going to get rough at the end of the month and into October..... buckle your seat belts. :cool:

[jmunjr]

Wow, the war issue is low on my list of what is important. Pre-emptive war is not necessarily a bad thing, but doing such for reasons not related to the security of the USA are bad things (e.g. oil)..

[Brian]

I haven't read the thread, but if RP was pro-war, I would think he was just as ignorant as the rest of the republican candidates. So no, I wouldn't support him.

[AlexAmore]

YES. Because all the other mainstream candidates are pro war even the DEMOCRATS! Obama and Hillary are pro war, the question is "which wars?" (the answer is Iran, Pakistan...ect which would be premptive wars if we striked). Hillary, Obama, and Edwards are all CFR and are both imperialistic in the Middle East, they just don't tell their liberal base that, but they tell Israel/AIPAC, and other special interests with enthusiasm. So you get pro war and socialism...no thanks. I would rather have libertarianism/conservatism and pro war.

Anyways Ron Paul is perfect. I couldn't ask for more.

[lucius]

Yes, he is the champion for one-issue that transcends all others for me--restore our constitutional republic.

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

deciding issue for me. i voted for the war and now regret it every day. i want someone that is a better person than myself.

Is that you Hillary?

[beermotor]

The war is what it is. I think we have bigger problems in Washington. Some of which probably contributed to us going to war in the first place.

So, if Ron's stance was the same but he held a 'pro war' position; I'd probably be just as excited about him. It's touchy though, it depends on why he was pro war. If he was pro-war to stay on the 'offensive against terrorism' I'd have a hard time believing him. But, if he was pro Iraq because we made a huge debacle of it and needed to verify solidarity before we left; I'd stay with him. (I almost wish this was his position, just so he wouldn't get so much heat for being 'isolationist'. However, I realize that this position may be great politically, it is horrible in practice).

Long story short, the war issue is secondary.


This is incorrect. The reason he is the best candidate is because he is against War, in all its forms (on poverty, drugs, Iraqis/Iranians/Muslims, etc). So the proper question is not "this war" but War as an ideology.

[libertarian4321]

If Ron Paul supported the insane Iraq war, it would be sure indication that he had lost his mind.

Therefore, I voted "no."

[Chester Copperpot]

If ron paul stayed the same on every issue except the war, would you still vote for him?

My top policy is monetary policy and monetary reform, including no IRS.

So my vote is still YES

[iamso910]

I voted No. I wasn't even that happy that Ron Paul conceded to the invasion of Afghanistan, which I'm sure he suspected would lead to the overthrow of a government and trigger nation building. This was predictable. Not to mention that the US refused to present evidence or go through the correct constitutional channels.

The main reasons war is the key issue for me are:

1. I believe in karma. Such that willfully encouraging a war that is not absolutely necessary, that one suspects to leading to the death of innocent people, one's karmic destiny requires that some equivalent suffering is in store.

2. That the greatest threat to liberty is and has always been war.

3. That the strong forces, such as the military industrial congressional oil CFR media complex are working hard to find never ending wars and to find ways to further empower the state.

[johnrocks]

I voted yes even though it is a very decisive issue for me. I will not vote for any of the other candidates for that reason as well as their support of the Unpatriot Act. I choose yes because havng followed Paul's career for years, I know he truly wants to cut government back and restore our liberties.

[john_anderson_ii]

He will be at the Florida Values Voter debate and will most certainly be in the upcoming Maryland NPR debate focusing on Civil Rights / Black issues and hosted by fellow black Tavis Smiley.


I think these are good issues for Ron to tackle, since he doesn't play the group rights game at all he is starting from a very sound position. It seems like all the MSM wants to do is talk about his Iraq position any more. They are trying to polarize him. Its debatable if that's working or not, but I'd like to hear the MSM ask him about something besides the war.

[Thor]

I voted yes, the war is secondary.

Sure it is an important issue. But Liberty, Freedom, far less taxes, smaller government, no big brother, etc are all far more important. (And any liberty loving, true Republican President would stop the war any way)

[jmunjr]

This is old, but I thought about this poll again recently, and I am a bit concerned. More than half of us would not vote for Paul if he was pro war. While I understand the reasoning behind this, for me the most vital positions of Paul's are not directly related to the war. For example: personal liberties, huge government, the IRS, Federal reserve, etc.

Of course Paul would not be able to cut taxes much if the war was maintained, and perhaps that is why many voted "no", but I wonder how many people mostly support him for his stance on the war.

And on that note, I think it is imperative that Paul doesn't mislead the public into believing he is a softy, because frankly right now to many that is what it sounds like. He's make the U.S. look weak. It doesn't matter what his positions are, if he appears weak the people won't vote for him. He needs to convince the people that if push came to shove the U.S. wouldn't take any crap.

[skiingff]

This is old, but I thought about this poll again recently, and I am a bit concerned. More than half of us would not vote for Paul if he was pro war. While I understand the reasoning behind this, for me the most vital positions of Paul's are not directly related to the war. For example: personal liberties, huge government, the IRS, Federal reserve, etc.

Of course Paul would not be able to cut taxes much if the war was maintained, and perhaps that is why many voted "no", but I wonder how many people mostly support him for his stance on the war.

And on that note, I think it is imperative that Paul doesn't mislead the public into believing he is a softy, because frankly right now to many that is what it sounds like. He's make the U.S. look weak. It doesn't matter what his positions are, if he appears weak the people won't vote for him. He needs to convince the people that if push came to shove the U.S. wouldn't take any crap.

If I had a vote, which I don't, because the poll is closed, I would vote 'NO.'

Why? It's obvious. This war is a fake, a fraud, and an occupation of foreign land. It's an occupation of a county in civil war. There has been and continues to be absolutely NO justification whatsoever for this occupation. The weapons weren't there, they didn't attack us on 9/11. The "dictator" justification is bogus. Where is the truth?

A pro-war Ron Paul would be a neocon. It would go against all my values and all his values. He would immediately lose half his support. But Ron Paul isn't against the Iraq war for support; that's his morals and his values and mine too. He's against it because he truly believes it was wrong.

It's true that being "anti-war" got Ron Paul as far as he is today -- no one would listen to another neocon. The Republicans already have like 10 of em running already.

Being for the war would go against every issue Ron Paul stands for.

[runderwo]

What's "for the war"?

Is it for nation building in Iraq and creating a US-friendly puppet in the Middle East?

Is it for exterminating Islam because they are assumed to be attacking us because they hate our freedom?

Is it for defending Israel because we have some kind of Zionist quantum entanglement with them?

Is it for moving the pre-emptive war into Iran?

Is it for locking down US citizens and suspending our rights because the terrorists are assuredly among us?



Or is it for bringing the admitted 9/11 attackers to justice through letters of marque and reprisal, and getting on with our lives without giving them what they want in the form of destroying our constitution?

[they walked in line]

Yes, he is the champion for one-issue that transcends all others for me--restore our constitutional republic.

With all due respect, I cannot understand this position for the life of me.

Supporting the military occupation of a country that posed no threat to us is completely incompatable with supporting the restoration of our constitutional republic. Quite simply, if Dr. Paul were in favor of the former, I would not take seriously his belief in the latter.

[libertythor]

He would never support the war to begin with.

[skiingff]

P.S. I refuse to lower my standards for ANYONE.

That includes Ron Paul, Adolf Hitler, George W. Bush, the Pope, Michael Jackson, my mom, my brother, my best friends, my supervisors, etc etc etc

If Ron Paul were for the "war," he'd be a hypocrite. He'd be for killing innocent civilians, for torture, for secret detentions and abuses, for domestic spying, for a police state to weed out "terrorists," for the military-industrial complex, for OPEC, for wasted spending and large deficits, for corruption, for lies, for FEAR.

If Ron Paul were for the "war," he'd go against everything he stands for.

Absolutely unacceptable.

I hold him to a higher standard than that.

I'm glad he is against this illegal occupation.

[erowe1]

As a matter of fact, Paul's view of the war is the only thing I have reservations about. Yes, I'd vote for him enthusiastically.

[freedominnumbers]

Yes, because even if he were for the war he'd still be the most representative of my beliefs.

This is what I try to help my neo-con friends realize. It doesn't matter if Iraq is free or not if we are not.

[OptionsTrader]

The question is irrelevant. It is like asking if your wife cheated on you or became a serial killer would you still love her. The question is irrelevant because it is not the kind of person she is.

[axiomata]

TO: The people who voted 'no'

If Paul took the mainstream Democratic position that the war was wrong was wrong to start, and it has been mismanaged, but we shouldn't immediately withdraw all of our troops because it may completely destabilize the region, would you still not vote for him. Technically, he'd still be for the war.

I think we all can agree that if RP started the Iraq War we wouldn't vote for him, but things aren't always as black and white. When I answered this poll I assumed that if RP supported the war, then it would have to be for a pragmatic reason not an ideological and thus, even if I disagreed, I would of course still vote for him.