There are numerous idealogies of Republicanism.  You have paleoconservatism, classic conservatism, social conservatism, and neoconservatism (neocon).  I am more paleo than neo.

Why is this man not our next president? I wish I knew why. I volunteered hours upon hours attempting to help RP win the nomination. I held signs, was a community organizer…you name it and I did it. Unfortunately, he did not win the nomination. I was on the fence on whom I was going to support after RP dropped out, but I finally made up my mind. Baldwin and the CP are too isolationist and authoritarian for me. I have no choice but to support Barr. I find his Libertarian conversion dubious, but he does offer the best solutions in the domestic and foreign areas.

Why libertarian-ish people aren't in power?

1. People like government services.

2. Market Failure is real, and only the government will intervene in a non-market way to jump start a stalled or retracting economy.

Denying market failure is one of the main reasons I can't be a libertarian anymore.

Also, he's very good at sounding like he knows what he's talking about while being completely wrong... trust me, I know about this.

To me he just sounds like someone who's read the Fountainhead a few too many times.

This thread is about Ron Paul, not Obama or McCain.

Men like Ron Paul can't become president because he embodies the ideals that the nation was founded on instead of pandering to corporate interests.

School is a terrible example. I've been a registered Libertarian for almost a decade but even I have to recognize when the party is flat-out wrong about something.

School should be available to everyone. The greater the education level of a society, the better off everyone in that society will be. This is doubly true for our current global economy. We're no longer competing with ourselves but upstart countries like China, India, and Brazil as well. The government needs to ensure proper education for all its citizens for in the end, it will receive a return on that investment in higher wages and, ultimately, taxes. Education has a great ROI if it isn't completely bungled (don't get me started on teacher's unions and administrative problems in our K-12 system).

Change "school" to "social welfare" and I'll agree almost every time. But education is different. It's an investment in the future. An investment the government needs to make.

Paul seems like more of an Atlus Shrugged guy to me.

Both excellent books, BTW. You just have to weed through some of Rand's bullshit along the way. They're definitely interesting takes on why a liberal society will ultimately fail. Not many authors tackle subjects like that.

I received this email from RP about this foolish bailout the president and secretary are proposing. I feel compelled to share it with people:

Dear Friends,

Whenever a Great Bipartisan Consensus is announced, and a compliant media assures everyone that the wondrous actions of our wise leaders are being taken for our own good, you can know with absolute certainty that disaster is about to strike. The events of the past week are no exception.

The bailout package that is about to be rammed down Congress' throat is not just economically foolish. It is downright sinister. It makes a mockery of our Constitution, which our leaders should never again bother pretending is still in effect. It promises the American people a never-ending nightmare of ever-greater debt liabilities they will have to shoulder. Two weeks ago, financial analyst Jim Rogers said the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac made America more communist than China! "This is welfare for the rich," he said. "This is socialism for the rich. It's bailing out the financiers, the banks, the Wall Streeters." That describes the current bailout package to a T. And we're being told it's unavoidable.

The claim that the market caused all this is so staggeringly foolish that only politicians and the media could pretend to believe it. But that has become the conventional wisdom, with the desired result that those responsible for the credit bubble and its predictable consequences - predictable, that is, to those who understand sound, Austrian economics - are being let off the hook. The Federal Reserve System is actually positioning itself as the savior, rather than the culprit, in this mess!

• The Treasury Secretary is authorized to purchase up to $700 billion in mortgage-related assets at any one time. That means $700 billion is only the very beginning of what will hit us.

• Financial institutions are "designated as financial agents of the Government." This is the New Deal to end all New Deals.

• Then there's this: "Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency." Translation: the Secretary can buy up whatever junk debt he wants to, burden the American people with it, and be subject to no one in the process.

There goes your country.

Even some so-called free-market economists are calling all this "sadly necessary." Sad, yes. Necessary? Don't make me laugh.

Our one-party system is complicit in yet another crime against the American people. The two major party candidates for president themselves initially indicated their strong support for bailouts of this kind - another example of the big choice we're supposedly presented with this November: yes or yes. Now, with a backlash brewing, they're not quite sure what their views are. A sad display, really.

Although the present bailout package is almost certainly not the end of the political atrocities we'll witness in connection with the crisis, time is short. Congress may vote as soon as tomorrow. With a Rasmussen poll finding support for the bailout at an anemic seven percent, some members of Congress are afraid to vote for it. Call them! Let them hear from you! Tell them you will never vote for anyone who supports this atrocity.

The issue boils down to this: do we care about freedom? Do we care about responsibility and accountability? Do we care that our government and media have been bought and paid for? Do we care that average Americans are about to be looted in order to subsidize the fattest of cats on Wall Street and in government? Do we care?

When the chips are down, will we stand up and fight, even if it means standing up against every stripe of fashionable opinion in politics and the media?

Times like these have a way of telling us what kind of a people we are, and what kind of country we shall be.

I agree we should provide education, but we need to change the way we provide it. Hitherto, our nation subsidizes the producers of education (schools). This is the wrong way of providing education. We need to subsidize the consumer and allow the consumer (parents and children) to choose the education they desire. Whether this is done through school vouchers or tax credits is up for debate, but subsidizing the producer is nonsense. We do this with foodstamps as opposed to government run grocery stores...so why  do we not do it with something much more important?