get your 14 year old rear out of here and let the adults that can vote talk. 

anyone but hillary and I do mean "anyone". Even the bum on the corner... Why? Everything she says and does is carefully planned, thought-through, and completely phony. I don't think she even has a personal opinion any more. The biggest complaints I have read (and they include those from her own husband, bill) is that she seems to not have a presence or personality in person. The above mentioned reason is precisely why. When Hillary speaks, it isn't hillary. It is a group of people's carefully crafted statements being delivered by her mouth.

All politicians do this to a significant degree, but she takes it to new, previously unimaginable levels. God help the U.S. of A. if she is elected.

Superchunk, why don't you take an attempt to research your positions before switching them so easily?

"Ron votes to eliminate tax funded abortions and to overturn Roe v Wade."

Ron Paul votes against nearly ALL Federal funding for anything. He's not going to take away a Women's right to abortion, he just doesn't think its the Federal Governments responsibility to pay for it (I agree). As for Roe V Wade, while Ron Paul is personally against Abortion he has stated numerous times he will let the states decide for themselves and he wouldn't make any attempt to pass a federal law prohibiting it.

1. I never said women should dress in any particular way, I was just saying that religious views should not be forced upon the general public. This should always be a personal opinion and decision.

2.  Paul (apostle) said he spoke with the Jesus and that is how he preached. That his ideas were one in the same with Jesus', so him saying women should wear scarfs is the same as if Jesus said so. Point was that this could easily be taken as an extreame point of view by some Christians. In fact it is in some circles.

3. What does CAIR or anything any other Islamic organizations point on this have to do with what I said. I am for a strict interpretation of separation of church and state.

4. You obviously havn't learned Islamic history from a University level class. Stop watching Fox News for your Islamic history. I am not going to waste my time going into a history class on Muhammad as you are obviously narrow minded and it won't be worth my time.

5. I have no idea if a Christian has stated that the constitution should be replaced by the Bible, but I know I have heard many make the erronous claim that the founding fathers founded this country on Christian ideals and beliefs. Especially in regards to Gay rights and abortion. 

The question you have to ask yourself about Ron Paul is "Can you really trust someone that wants to lead the Republican party?"

 Hey, I went with the facts listed on this thread. I am all good with the elimination of tax funded abortions. My comment was  in regards to the overturning or Roe v Wade.

Basically, my major issue with most Republicans is in regards of conserativism. I am absolutely against anyone's religious views, including mine, being thrust upon anyone else.

So anyone who is for overturning Roe v Wade is automatically off my roster. 

There are certain important issues to me:

1. How religious these people are. If they put too much into their religious stances, they are out.

2. Israel. How much money do they recieve from AIPAC. The more they receive the lower on my list.

3. Then a mixture of other economic and foreign policy issues.

Ron Paul gives me a warm fuzzy feeling. He's the type of guy that makes me proud to say I'm a registered Libertarian.

I don't agree with his views on abortion (but I do respect why he feels that way) but other than that, he's all good in my book.

I would never vote Hillary just because I can't stand that woman. Her political ideals are almost completely contrarian to my own (well, as far as economics go, that is).

Normally I strongly dislike anyone who want to overturn Roe v. Wade but I respect why Paul wants to do it. He wants to give power back to the states, right where it should be. The Federal government meddles too much in state affairs.

Other than that, those are good policies to stick to when voting, Superchunk.

 Firstly decreasing taxes on those who have very little will have a small effect on the budget deficit. Afterall they pay very little tax to begin with and therefore reducing it will have a negligible effect on the deficit.

  Secondly, tax policies rarely have a large effect despite what economic theory has to say. George W. Bush used tax cuts as a growth policy throughout his term despite there being no real evidence that tax cuts enhance economic growth. Supply-side economics is rubbish as any reasonable economist knows. Furthermore, theres little reason to expect a dramatic investment change in the face of a small tax increase on the rich. Finally, the Federal Reserve has a far greater impact on investment than any tax policy could ever hope to have and if a tax policy was to have any material effect it would be easily countered through a slight easing of monetary policy. 

Ultimately the US has a dillema. It has a large and possibly unsustainable debt and it can reduce it through decreasing spending or increasing taxes. However, you can only reduce spending so much, sure there's the war and spending can be reduced simply by exiting it. But where do you go from there? Eventually spending cuts end up harming those with which a society seeks to protect, the poor and middle-class. The alternative is of course to raise taxes, politically unpopular but almost certainly necessariy given the irresponsible tax policies of George W. Bush over this decade.