Last night at the Iowa debate, Ron Paul actually made the case for why he should be the next president of the United States and why he is the only republican candidate that can beat Barack Obama, and today on CNN he is getting hammered for it.

Ron Paul actually explained to the people of this country that war against Iran is an insane concept.  Michelle Bachman and the moderator's tried to call his position "dangerous".  The "dangerous" position that Ron Paul of course is endorsing is the ridiculous concept that Iran should be allowed to govern itself without foreign countries trying to dictate and impose their will on them. 

Now I'm no fan of Iran or any of these freak show middle east countries, but jesus christ back off allready.  Iran has zero interest in actually going to war with anyone, they would be anhilitated in days and they know this.  But for some reason the neo-conservative wing of the republican party has decided that war with Iran is the only option.

We have all seen the polls that show Obama beats both Gingrich and Romney in heads up fight (and let's face it Romney and Obama really aren't very different anyways).  But the reason neither of them will be able to beat Obama is they won't be able to pull the independent voters from Obama, but Ron Paul can.  Lot's of independent voters voted for Obama because he said we would end our wars and bring our troops home.  And for a lot of independent voters Obama has failed to live up to their expectations, but if the only choice is Obama vs Gingrich or Romney they'll stick with Obama because at least he is kind of doing it (it's kind of half assed but something is better than nothing). 

We need to wake up as republicans.  We are the party of individual freedoms and the party that believes that the true way to proseperity is the individual liberty of each and every man, because it is only when man has liberty that he is truly free.  Republicans don't believe in government control over the basic tasks in our lives and we don't believe our government should be enforcing it's beliefs on other countries. 

You may not believe in everything Ron Paul stands for but atleast he will be their to defend your right to say it.

I base it on his great expansion to the "Global War on Terror". 

I mean, he took the occasional breaching of Pakistan's soverinty and turned it into a hobby.

I mean look at this.  It's ridiculious

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_attacks_in_Pakistan#2010

That it took Pakistan so long to publicly blow up at us is freaking amazing.

Obama clearly ain't afraid to bomb a country if something is going on within the country he doesn't like... let ALONE bomb a country ACTIVLY doing something we don't like.

I think this gets GREATLY understated because republicans are trying to convince their base that Obama isn't doing enough on the war on terror, when the reality is... he's GREATLY expanded what bush was doing.

To bring it back to Ron Paul.  He and Dennis Kusnich actually tried last year to get a vote to withrdaw from Pakistan.

I wonder if Dennis! would consider running as Vice President if Paul ran as an Independent.

Probably not, but it'd be cool since he seems likely to lose his district and doesn't want to fight a fellow Democrat for it.   (Which is a shame, I really like Dennis Kusnich.  Voted for him more then once.)

He's one of maybe.... 3 politicains who tells it how he see's it most of the time.  For example, suggesting Obama should be put on trial for an impeachment after invading Libya... one of the few people who stayed true to the "Bush should be impeached" point of view.

He and Paul would balance each other out nicely on some of the issues.

I was just saying that Obama (who hasn't gone to war with Iran over the drone) is less of a warmonger than most of the Republican field who say that he should have.

Ron Paul could either run as an Independent or choose a candidte to support and run as a V.P.  He needs to be in the white house one way or another.

But would he support Israel if they were attacked and needed our help to stay alive?

I disagree in general because I see it as a case of actions speaking louder then words.

They're taking an oppurtunity to exagerate things to bash Obama because to a certain part of their base, the truth is... Obama is a better "national security" president then Bush ever was, because he's GREATLY expanded unilateral strikes against terrorists in countries like Afghanistan.

Additionally, none of the field to my knowledge actually suggested we should go to war vs Iran based off the drone.

What they DID argue was that Obama shouldn't of asked for the drone back, but instead demanded the drone back tying it to some action.  Which could mean military, or could mean sanctions or whatever else.