Ron Paul is a better nominee than John McCain

I am not questioning his record. While I disagree with most of his positions I respect his consistency. However, I maintain that by choosing to run against his own party instead of running for it he did nothing less than attempt to undermine it. Though I agree(as would any Republican) that our government needs to be reduced, Ron Paul's reduction plan is nothing more than a massive government implosion. As to your claims of empire building, aggressive war, and occupation(a claim so common among Libertarians), they are completely unfounded. America has been attacked and she has responded defensively, but instead of waiting for them to attack us again we have brought the fight to their back yard(the "aggressive war" claim). Another deadly weapon we have brought against the terrorists is the spreading of freedom and democracy through regions where this concept was formerly unheard of(the "occupation" claim). I'm afraid I can't address your "empire building" claim as it is unclear what you are referring to. We are not expanding our nation, we are, however, creating new and better ones. We are not "asserting" our nation values "and they are definitely not "authoritarian". In fact these countries have gladly embraced this opportunity at a bright new beginning. Libertarians have sided with liberals to paint our efforts that keep this nation safe as darkly as possible and-more often than not-distort the truth to meet their own agendas. "Maybe the moderate Democrats are against this occupation because they fail to accept war propaganda, and because they see this war for what it truly is… Not a War on terror, but a War of Terror." Well, first of all I would like to point out that it is the liberals and not the moderates that speak out the loudest. Many moderates are in fact for the war on terror. A "war of terror"...I'm just not sure how to address this because not only is it a baseless claim but also highly offensive. It is something that should be expected out of the mouth of a brainwashed college student who believes in the 911 "cover-up", but not from one who claims the title of a Republican. "He has said very plainly…our actions have consequences" No, that is not all that he has said. If it were he would not be such a controversial figure. You may interpret it that way, but I suggest that you refer to the December 12th debate. Mr. Paul's arguments were particularly odious on this occasion. "Ron Paul has supported a non-interventionist foreign policy not just because it is morally right and gives the best outcome, but because the founding fathers themselves advised it." Well first off let me say that although I highly revere our founding fathers we must keep in mind that they were thinking in 18th century terms...not 21st century terms. In the modern world it would be impossible for America to simply withdraw into herself and watch world events unfold. Without our global presence terror cells would be able to thrive and prosper without fear of opposition. Isolationism also be a devastating blow to freedom around the world. Without the assurance of our aid many small democratic nations that have relied on our support would be quickly overcome by the tyrannical forces surrounding them. "WHY THE **** do we have operational bases in France, Germany, and Korea." Although I agree that we could easily afford to close several of our international bases(i.e. France), but other bases have proven crucial to us in both the war on terror(Germany) and providing support and training to one of our closest allies(Korea). Whether or not terrorists recruiting has increased or not I don't know, but I do know that we have not sustained another Islamic terrorist attack in this country since 911. I would say that that speaks rather well for our foreign policy. Pacification is NEVER the answer to terror. To continue on the gold issue, however, we must first remember that gold is a commodity with an arbitrary value which is subject to manipulation as is any commodity. The price of gold rises and falls as it becomes dear or common, hoarded or circulated. Binding a nation's money to gold is to bind it to the fluctuations in volume and price. In the last three years alone gold has fluctuated within a $261 value spectrum. And finally, even if we were able to fix a gold price that is consistent with market values(a nearly impossible task in and of itself), it would be possible for the gold to be drained from reserve by demanding exchange of currency for gold. The U.S. Constitution allows the government to issue currency by fiat. This is a sound system as long as the volume of currency issued is carefully controlled to be directly proportionate to the nation's production. Unfortunately, the government has not kept to this system. if it had we would not be having such rapid inflation and would also most likely not be having this debate. "No nation or terrorist has the power to destroy us, but the cost of the military expenditures abroad, coupled with 60 trillion in debt and entitlements will destroy this country, and Ron Paul is the only one willing to take drastic measures to keep that from happening." I think you have far too much confidence in this nation's invulnerability. Major threats such as China, Iran, and even-to an extent-Russia would like nothing better than for us to retire into a shell of isolationism where we would be far more vulnerable to their unhealthy prospects for this nation. Ron Paul's strategies would leave this country's security in shambles. "Reagan was all talk and no show" Let's begin shall we? When Ronald Reagan took oath in January 1980 he inherited the disastrous remains of the Jimmy Carter administration, America was a declining power. In Central America, totalitarian allies of Fidel Castro had conquered Nicaragua. Abandoning their promises to protect civil liberty, the Sandinistas were creating a Stalinist state in which the Communist party would be the living god in the "liberation theology" of a servile state church. Other Communists were fighting a war for the same goal in Central America. In 1983, a hard-line Stalinist seized power in a coup in Grenada. Today, Thanks to Ronald Reagan, Latin America is freer than it has been since the days before the Incas, the Aztecs, and the Spanish Empire. Ronald Reagan was among the very few visionaries who foresaw a better world. Challenging the Soviets to an arms race, halting Soviet expansionism everywhere, and reasserting the moral superiority of freedom he destroyed the evil empire and liberated Europe from the oppressive Communist yoke. Reagan's most enduring success was in tax policy. When he took office, the top federal tax rate was 70%-a rate sure to discourage entrepreneurship by unfairly confiscating well over half the earnings of creative risk-takers. Reagan left office having lowered the top rate to 28%. Government control of political speech in the media in the form of the "fairness doctrine" was abolished, allowing AM radio stations to begin employing hosts who specialized in political commentary. During his time in office Reagan turned the Republican Party into a conservative party, although I'm afraid many Republicans seem to have lost their way. Reagan left us a legacy of conservative values and American freedoms that we still enjoy today, and I am proud to call myself a Reagan conservative.