Have you cast your vote yet on these two major online voting polls?

http://www.whowouldtheworldelect.com/

http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/

See who is in the lead

That moderator is such a stooge. He attempted to bait Ron Paul and failed miserably.

possibly better (longer) video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5ZXM3h4jig

upvote for the entertainment value of that wacko, he really needs to switch parties and work for Billary

Voters elected Ron Paul for 10 terms. He's a pediatrician.
Any doctor who can get elected 10 times has my respect, but you are right, anyone who opposes the war is asking to be labeled with the "wacko" stereotype.

McCain can sing "bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb iran, boooomb iraaaan" To the tune of "barbara ann" But that's just normal psychotic behavior, and we can't at all condemn that kind of thing. Someone who watches TV might think Iran expects to be bombed, or that they are "asking for it."

Here's the song to sing: http://www.videosift.com/video/Adam-Kontras-Lets-Bomb-Iran-to-the-tune-of-The-Beach-Boys-Barbara-Ann
Here's a moron singing it:
http://www.videosift.com/video/Bomb-Bomb-Bomb-Bomb-Bomb-Iran

BillOreilly stated:"he really needs to switch parties and work for Billary"

Yuck, that's an ugly thought.. actually I think he'd work well with Dennis Kucinich though. They are the only two candidates that seem to be fighting for proper checks and balances and protecting the Constitution...

They're the only ones that truly go beyond all this partisan bullshit. Just take a look at the online voting in the links I posted previously. It looks like they're in the lead.. go figure. What? they are not "real" polls? You mean the corporate-controlled selective polls that show the ex-CFR members in the lead are "real"? Well, that's a surprize.. NOT!

Ron Paul represents what a true original republican is(you know-- from the days of yore). Not the mass-media-hyped extremist-far-right wackos in control today.

"The United States of America, not the Divided States of America"
34.7% approval rating for Bush (even lower on some polls). Sounds pretty united to me. The same polling companies that came out with numbers showing Bush as once popular are now showing he's lost almost all support.

So many Republican bureaucrats wave the word honor around like they want the American people to be samurai committing ritual suicide for the benefit of the bureaucrats. Ron Paul would restore real honor, and sanity, to the Republican party. The party of small government has become the party of big government, wild spending (giving homeland security money to throw parties for example), and slashing of troop's benefits and combat pay.

I really don't understand what makes this guy a "wacko". He's absolutely right when he says that he's the most conservative Republican candidate in the classical sense. That doesn't mean I agree with him but I really don't think his ideas are any more wacked out than those of the coalition for the New American Century.

Maybe someday BillOreilly will have something pertinent to say.

Until then, he'll keep laughing at his own asinine jokes, because nobody else is.

BillOreilly is like the child at the adult table during supper, telling fart jokes he heard on the playground.

Ron Paul is the only candidate here appearing to be speaking from his true heart of hearts and it shows. Everything else is them telling you what you want to hear.

Ron Paul has a lot of good "common since" ideas about most things, but there are some things I don't agree with. He says he wants to get rid of social security and Medicare, but I haven't heard his plan for what's going to happen to all of the people who rely on social security and Medicare. Private insurance companies are not the answer, private insurance companies are a rip off. I'm all for a working national healthcare system, healthy citizens = a healthy nation.

Insurance companies only care about making money for their investors, not providing care for their customers. Insurance companies should not be telling doctors what they can or can not do. When I was seriously injured in a car wreck years ago, my insurance company would only pay for so many days of ICU, so when that was up, I was kicked out to a regular hospital before I was even stable. Then they only covered so many days in a hospital, and once again when that was up I was kicked out. I didn't have any say in the matter because I was still in and out of consciousness.

It wasn't just my insurance company either. The accident wasn't my fault, and at fault driver's insurance tried to weasel out of paying for anything. I had to get a lawyer and it took over a year just to get them to pay their share of the bills.

Then to add insult to injury (literally) when it came time to renew my policy, they denied me. Nobody should have to go through that just to get the medical care they need. I'm sure if the insurance companies had any more control than they do, they would have just let me die so they could save money.

I think government does stick it's nose in a lot of things where it doesn't belong, but healthcare for it's citizens isn't one of them.

People always say that because he doesn't have the money, he doesn't have a chance. Yes it seems that he is all over the internet, and that everybody loves him, regardless of political affiliation. My vote is for him.

Cool to see Ron Paul standing up there among the Republican Puppet Show.

Guliani sucks so much... I look forward to him dropping out

he's the Howard Dean of this election. he's not going to be even close to winning the republican nomination. old people don't use the internet (with few exceptions), but they vote like gangbusters.

I agree with bamdrew. If the elections were held on the internet this guy would win hands down, BUT it isn't. It's the AARP crowd that gets out the numbers and votes the most.

That's why if I was a Ron Paul fan I wouldn't get all excited about hearing any online polls about him. It comes down to money in presidential elections which he lacks. Money leads to exposure and exposure leads to votes. Not real hard math to figure out here.

Ron Paul makes too much sense and would be too healthy of a change for this country to be elected. He'll never make it- only crooks can be president.

I'm excited that someone like him actually made it to the Primary debates though, he's the only politician in the last 20 years that's been inspiring. The rest are all douchebags, from both sides.

-he won't make it not due to lack of votes or lack of money-he will not be allowed to make it, for that is the nature of the machine...

the machine is pretty damn pissed off about him getting this far, that's obvious

Sure, the election is not in the interwebs, but he's got plenty of damn exposure from it. And now that he's in all these debates, he's got exposure from that,
too.

Just let me have my shred of hope, huh?

Why isn't Obama enough? He's funding himself through small donations, he clearly presents the pros and cons of decisions, he has a history of direct community service for crap's sake... nobody has been this close to being president who's like Obama in a long time... he's in nobody's pocket, is adamant about staying that way, and still is raising piles of cash from working hard and being awesome. And he can win!

Ron Paul has great points, and they especially stand out in contrast with the jag-offs he shares the stage with, but he can't win. Its not how these things go. Republican's are now a party that is only united in their attempts to distance themselves from Bush, and they're not taking kindly to this Libertarian/Ancient-Republican making them look dumb (at least to 30% of the voting audience) at their own debates.

It's usually because of lack of good choice that I don't vote. In my opinion, Ron Paul is genius. Problem is, intelligence doesn't win the votes, as the sheeple vote for whomever gets the most exposure (they do what they are told, don't form good opinions on their own). To me, all the other puppets on stage are in somebody's pocket, saying the same things over and over, yet not coming up with solutions to REAL problems. Iraq is not the problem, its the foreign policy exactly as Ron says, but all these candidates have to hammer into everyone's head that they are going to fix Iraq. That is a bandaid approach and the only real way to fix anything is to go to the root of the problem, the policy, and fix it. The IRS is unconstitutional, we need to get rid of it. It's only purpose is to keep tabs on citizens. I'm all for smaller government. I never realized Ron Paul and myself shared so many similar views and he is going to get me out to vote this time around.
I don't know about any of you, but I have absolutely no fear of going anywhere and getting attacked by terrorists, but I have a great fear of this government sending me to jail and taking my posessions if I don't pay taxes. I have more fear of getting mugged in a bad section of town by my fellow americans, than any foreign party. I could ramble on all day, but I'm probably preaching to the choir. A lot of you guys have great points.

bamdrew stated:"nobody has been this close to being president who's like Obama in a long time... he's in nobody's pocket"

Obama was on the Council of Foreign Relations... In my opinion anyone that has been a member of this illegitimate organization is in the pocket of the neocon NWO agenda which plays both sides.

Why isn't Obama enough?

Two reasons. 1) He supports abortion and 2) He wants to preserve the social security program.

SS is a failing program that started out as a great idea, but we all know that by the time I'm 65 and want to retire, there won't be any money left. So all those thousands of dollars that was stripped of that I would supposedly get back, I will be missing. Had I had the choice, I'd rather put it under my mattress.

And to all those people that say that Paul doesn't get enough exposure -well, everyone on the internet loves him - on both sides. Even if people don't use computers, they're bound to hear about him through other people. Besides that, when you say he doesn't get exposure, you say it like using internet is something that only geeks do in the shadows of their basement on a brand new 60 Mhz Pentium.

In reply to this comment by jimnms:
Ron Paul has a lot of good "common since" ideas about most things, but there are some things I don't agree with. He says he wants to get rid of social security and Medicare, but I haven't heard his plan for what's going to happen to all of the people who rely on social security and Medicare. Private insurance companies are not the answer, private insurance companies are a rip off. I'm all for a working national healthcare system, healthy citizens = a healthy nation.

Insurance companies only care about making money for their investors, not providing care for their customers. Insurance companies should not be telling doctors what they can or can not do. When I was seriously injured in a car wreck years ago, my insurance company would only pay for so many days of ICU, so when that was up, I was kicked out to a regular hospital before I was even stable. Then they only covered so many days in a hospital, and once again when that was up I was kicked out. I didn't have any say in the matter because I was still in and out of consciousness.

It wasn't just my insurance company either. The accident wasn't my fault, and at fault driver's insurance tried to weasel out of paying for anything. I had to get a lawyer and it took over a year just to get them to pay their share of the bills.

Then to add insult to injury (literally) when it came time to renew my policy, they denied me. Nobody should have to go through that just to get the medical care they need. I'm sure if the insurance companies had any more control than they do, they would have just let me die so they could save money.

I think government does stick it's nose in a lot of things where it doesn't belong, but healthcare for it's citizens isn't one of them.

Totally agree here. His platform is the war in Iraq and national security.

You'll notice when the moderator asks him about getting rid of the IRS, federal reserve, CIA, FBI, etc., he immediately refocuses the question on security only. That's because he knows his libertarian platform of privatizing everything and relying on the free market doesn't ring true to most people. Even if it does, though, I have not seen a plan by which he will take all bureaucracies private while avoiding the collapse of much our infrastructure.

This is what worries me most about Ron Paul -- people hear the Iraq stuff (which I personally agree with), but don't hear the equally important stuff about what he plans to do with the federal gov't (eliminate as much as possible).

So while this makes Paul a nice story, he is not a candidate I would support, because his "classical conservatism" is so extreme. My vote is still going to a Democrat, for better or for worse.

I'd vote for ron paul!