You don't want to occupy unfriendly nations? Just the friendly ones then? 10,000 troops in the UK, a thousand troops in Belgium, 50,000 troops in Germany, 40,000 in Japan, 30,000 in South Korea.

Should the USA be paying for the defence of Europe and South Asia? I mean, all those German and Japanese car companies that are costing Americans jobs.... they get it easier because they don't have to pay taxes to the Government for defence, because the US Government does it for them. Is that fair?

What aspects of big Government will be missed? The department of education ruining education? Or the healthcare laws that drive up the costs? Or the Feds spying on you/taking your liberties through the Patriot Act, NDAA, EEA, etc?

You may argue that about Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid... though Paul's promised not to touch them much during a first term... but they would be better in the hands of the states.

I must say, I do find some of his positions odd, like the flag burning, but ultimately, unimportant in the bigger picture. Far more important to any libertarian are his views on eminent domain/property rights, the second amendment, and acts like the PATRIOT ACT.

Libertarians do have different points of views on some things. Some Libertarians are pro-life, some are pro-choice. Some favour censorship which protects children, others do not. I am pro-life and anti-censorship, but I can see the arguments for the other sides.

Amen brother. I like Ron Paul for exactly the reasons you said.

I don't understand how people are willing to settle for more of the same which is debt, big government, regulations, etc. when Ron Paul wants to give us freedom and less taxation.

I also find his positions odd, because, as you point out, his positions on many issues are textbook libertarianism, gun ownership and the patriot act being two good examples.

America gains a lot more for "protecting" those nations, then they lose in paying for a million soldiers oversees. The nations we "occupy" are of great value to the US economy and to allow us to influence the world in a way that benefits America. Already it can be seen how the less influence we have, the more willing other countries are to go against us in both economic and politcal ways. We wouldn't want Russia to influence how and what Europeans trade with us or China to influence how and what asians trade with us.

German and Japanse car companies are not costing USA jobs... American car companies making products that Americans would rather not buy are costing USA jobs. And regardless the job loss is  minimum. Its not like Toyota makes the cars overseas and ships them over to the United States. They are build here in the United States, just like cars GM sells in China are build in China... 

Big government will be missed. As bad as education is it could get a lot worse. Food regulation as well. Business regulation, etc, etc. State Government is just as much a part of government as the federal government and has proven many times to be just as incompetent. What makes you think they can make things perfect. I am all for limited the government's ability to spy on us. There are plenty of bad things I would enjoy getting rid of. But being spied on doesn't really affect my day to day life as much as if I had to worry about food being even less so regulated than it is now, or if employees could collectivly agree on a maximum wage any of them would give to a worker in my field. Yes states are suppose to take care of that, but there is no doubt in my mind, at least initially, things will get a lot worse. So I would rather wait and vote for a candidate that is willing to focus on getting rid of what I find are the bad parts of big government than one that gets to completely get rid of it.

I agree with everything said in the OP. Ron Paul is the only candidate I will support. The only reason he isn't winning these polls by landslide amounts is because the mainstream media isn't covering him at all, and when they do it is almost always negative trying to make him look bad. He is only becoming more and more popular as time goes on though, and even when he doesn't win first in these caucus states he is still getting most of the delegates. (Something people seem to be ignoring...)

While I don't agree with some of his positions, I would definitely support a Santorum/Paul ticket. Anyone but Romney.

It's sad that the largest argument that people have in support of Romney is that he can win. Not that they support his decisions or his policies, but that they think he can defeat Obama. When you put aside your morals and beliefs just to have a hollow victory, you don't deserve to win. And I don't think Romney would win anyway. It's like Santorum said, "How are you going to get independents excited about a candidate that the party isn't even excited about?" The answer is you can't. And I already know the #1 broken promise Romney will bring if he is elected, repealing Obamacare. He's going to feel the pressure from Democrats and the media, and he's going to back down.

That's the beauty of a 2-party system. It forces parties to avert themselves from extremist positions, at least as a whole nationally

People are ignoring because they just don't know. The media is flat out fabricating the delegate counts in the caucus states to fit their rhetoric. And when Paul's delegates get further elected, the media will quietly change their numbers without saying anything about it.

Well, it would be, if there actually was a two-party system. It's essentially one party with two different "wings". Both wings want big government, they just want it in different ways. The parties and the media package it as if there are two different parties, and that they are greatly different, just to give the electorate the illusion of choice.