Ron Paul running as a third party candidate will hurt Republicans like Ross Perot did in 92

First of all I am going to totally defeat your first ridiculous supposition, which from your previous statements seems to be "tongue in cheek" Democrats and Republicans are VERY different they are also the major two parties in the US They could not be more different on taxes national security spending corruption and influence peddling morality life liberty and most of the other issues listed on this site So to say that you would vote for Paul (he is running as an R by the way) regardless is just plain stupid Libertarianism is radical conservatism. But our system of government is very stable and will not tolerate radical change, like it or not. We have gone through about 230 years of changes since 1777 , and have had many changes occur We had a civil war We had slavery end We had the Spanish American War, WWI, WWII We had prohibition, and then the repeal thereof And so much more Along the way, the congress, elected by the people have voted for the federal agencies that exist and the programs they created. yes there are problems with the system government spends too much, and so on You may or may not agree we have responsibility to the world You may or may not feel we have responsibility to take care of the poor You may or may not think our economic system is perfect or even good Nonetheless, the system we have is VERY STABLE, people prosper, and this system we have is the greatest on the planet BY FAR. It is the envy of the world. people thrive here and anyone who works hard WILL succeed . period. Thus, Americans are NOT ready for ANY type of radical change. And their instinct is RIGHT Radicalism, generally a tool of the leftist communist types, leads to awful things like 1917 Russia , modern day Venezuela, and 1979 Iran, to name a few examples Saul Alisnky is considered the father of the modern day democrat Commie-type rabble rouser "were for change" - he is the inspiration for both Clinton and Obama http://en.wikipedia.org... here is the real truth about the democrats , based on alinsky Saul Alinsky died in 1972. He was a Marxist grassroots organizer who spent much of his life organizing rent strikes and protesting conditions of the poor in Chicago in the 1930s. However, unlike Christian socialist and activist for the poor Dorothy Day, Alinsky's real claim to fame was as strategist for anti-establishment '60s radicals and revolutionaries. Indeed, Alinsky wrote the rule book for '60s radicals like Bill and Hillary Clinton, George Miller and Nancy Pelosi. He considered Hillary Rodham to be one of his better students and asked her to join him in his efforts as an organizer of radical leftist causes. But Hillary had other fish to fry on her climb to national prominence. Alinsky had a true genius for formulating tactical battle plans for the radical left. He wrote two books outlining his organizational principles and strategies: "Reveille for Radicals" (1946) and "Rules for Radicals" (1971). "Rules for Radicals" begins with an unusual tribute: "From all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins – or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom – Lucifer." The devil challenged authority and got his own kingdom, and that goes to the heart of what left is really about. That of course is to get power any way you can, including lying, cheating and stealing. The ultimate rule is that the ends justify the means. Alinsky asserted that he was more concerned with the acquisition of power than anything else: "My aim here is to suggest how to organize for power: how to get it and how to use it." This is not to be done with assistance to the poor, nor even by organizing the poor to demand assistance: "[E]ven if all the low-income parts of our population were organized ... it would not be powerful enough to get significant, basic, needed changes." Alinsky advises his followers that the poor have no power and that the real target is the middle class: "Organization for action will now and in the decade ahead center upon America's white middle class. That is where the power is. ... Our rebels have contemptuously rejected the values and the way of life of the middle class. They have stigmatized it as materialistic, decadent, bourgeois, degenerate, imperialistic, war-mongering, brutalized and corrupt. They are right; but we must begin from where we are if we are to build power for change, and the power and the people are in the middle class majority." But that didn't stop Alinsky and his followers from using the middle class for their own purposes. They counted on the guilt and shame of the white middle class to get what they wanted. In order to take over institutions and get power, the middle class had to be convinced that they were somehow lucky winners in "life's lottery." Alinsky's radicals found a perfect vehicle for their destruction of the American system and more particularly for taking and maintaining power. That instrument was the Democratic Party. Now, this is why radical change is EVIL to the core , representing communist thought, and serves to try and DESTROY AMERICA and LIBERTY Libertarians have great ideas. They are, by in large, conservatives. The basic ideas they have to bring America back to a more constitutional basis of our government is fully agreed to by myself, Mark Levin, Robert Bork, and many other conservatives and constitutional scholars. However, these changes will ONLY HAPPEN through slow, methodical, rational, logical conservativism within the Republican party, and convincing enough people to vote for people like Ron Paul, such that they make up at least 50% of both houses of congress and the presidency. It is INCREDIBLY IMMATURE to say, like Ross Perot did, and Ron Paul hints at, that "I AM GOING TO DO THIS BY FIAT" It will NOT HAPPEN that way and IT SHOULDNT EITHER. The fact that our government is so entreched and stable is GOOD. A CONSERVATIVE REVOLUTION IS AN OXYMORON To try and get RID OF THINGS and GO BACK to PREVIOUS TIMES is difficult, but not impossible, and only happens when people are fed up with the system enough to DEMAND IT through their DULY ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES Do you really think for a second that Ron Paul, by himself, could get rid of even ONE goverrment agency, without congress agreeeing? Or the federal reserve? Of course not. Ron Paul should try and get the repubican nomination as he is. He should NOT RUN AS A 3rd party if he doesnt, as it will HURT THE CONSERVATIVES and AID THE LIBERALS, who are the ENEMIES OF LIBERTY and FREEDOM and OUTRIGHT SOCIALISTS. That is my belief. It is CLEAR that Perot GAVE Clinton the presidency in 92 and he did tremendous damage to this nation, enthically , morally, militarily, economically, and many other ways. His old lady will be WAY WORSE. Now a counter argument you could make is that there are actually more liberals and democrats that would vote for Paul as a 3rd party , but I dont think that is worth the risk I do for one want to see more real parties emerge in the US, and that we end up with something other than the democrats and republicans I also think that we should enforce term limits of 12 years . period. One of the key ideas of the founders was the idea of "citizen-legislator" , people from the private sector serving for awhile and then GOING HOME and DOING SOMETHING ELSE The main problem we have is with career politicians like the cape cod orcha, Kennedy, and many many others like Byrd and repubicans like Spector So rant all you want, and make silly assertions, but if you really beleive in the conservative priciples you espouse, you better listen