That was the talk of conservative's, including Saul Anuzis', who soundly condemned the statement and said "Ron Paul should explain himself" on that answer.

what is there to explain?  unlike all the other candidates -- and most partisan politicians -- ron paul has principles and integrity.  why should he support anyone who doesn't represent his principles, simply because they have a little (R) next to their name.  

Saul's comment last night - "that he explain himself" - is a measured comment.  Ron Paul's explanation to me was fairly measured - that it depended on the candidate's proclivity to violate the Constitution, and when I followed up he laughed at the idea of ever endorsing the Democratic nominee.  

Editorially, I agree with you Saul's actions after the summer debate where he called for excommunication were highly inappropriate.  Again, see my defense of Ron Paul on the other thread here at RM.

I guess he's just bringing "so many people" to a party... and serving Jim Jones Kool-Aid.

Integrity?  He runs as a Republican, and then cries if he doesn't get the nomination?  Boys don't cry, especially from Texas.  Integrity isn't a single issue voter.  Integrity isn't saying "we can't win" and then in the same breath "the war is illegal".  

Not a single one of the Paul supporters that I know support big spending; unlike the rest of the Republican Party. Not a single Paul supporter supports higher taxes; while the Republicans whine about them after demanding higher spending. Not a single Paul supporter believes in abortion; unlike McCain, Guiliani, Romney, and maybe Thompson.

Or whatever.  Exactly.  More conspiracy wacko-ness.  At least the person who cited Newt Gingrich as a CFR member was correct.

Now we're hearing McCain, Romney, Giuliani, and Thompson are members.  Too bad it's not true.  I guess we can ignore Huckabee, even though he might be "my" candidate.

I also like the touch of class using the word "operatives".  Operatives for whom, may I ask?

ron paul is a strict constitutionalist, and therefore considers every politician at the federal bound strictly by that document.  he has continually called each and every candidate out on numerous occasions for abusing the constitution.  

Interesting opening...

every single one of them voted to transfer the authority to the president, to wage war.  at first i didn't see this as unconstitutional, and i didn't see that harm in it.  but over the past few years it has become clear why congress and congress alone can declare war and MUST do so before we take aggressive actions.

EVERY SINGLE ONE?  Rudy has super powers, now?  Mike Huckabee, Governor, can vote to give war powers to the President?  Now who's exceeding constitutional authority?

Funny, though - I didn't see Ru Paul take this to the Supreme Court to adjudicate.

romney: consulting your lawyers for war, socialized medicine, etc.  I don't see a principled bone in his body.  

Yeah, I can't see much when I put my hands over my eyes either.  It's amazing how much I can see when I take my hands off and open my eyelids...

thompson:  he consulted for a pro-abortion group in the early 90's, his idea of federalism is letting the states decide how to manage their welfare programs..."under the strict direction and supervision of the federal government, of course, which still supplied almost all of the funding for the programs," as thomas dilorenzo points out.  and then some other stuff.

Yeah, and you're probably still upset we pay income taxes - and the 16th Amendment isn't legitimate... and... sigh "some other stuff."

huckabee:  i really tried to like this guy.  he seems so nice, and i'm sure he is...i'm sure he's a great family man, and a good all around person, but people find very strange ways to justify their positions and allowing yourself to make compromises on serious issues is the epitome of being unprincipled.  he would gladly use federal power to subsidize farms, alternative energy, and other things.  he does not have any intentions of sticking to the strict limits to which he is bound by the constitution.

I'm surprised that Ru Paul lasted so long in congress, collecting a paycheck while every single one of his colleagues broke the constitution.  You'd think, in the time he was in Congress (all those plenty of years) he would've been able to form such a concensus to stop the anti-constitutional bills like farm subsidies.

if they can't respect the law, why support them to have that much power?  

Re: the fact that I am NOW a Libertarian. I have stated numerous times that I have been a registered Republican for 30 years. When Saul made his ludicrous demand of removing Dr. Paul from the debates, I knew then that the GOP was going to be a place where I am not welcome, as a small government conservative.

I've asked for details. Name one Republican that has actually cut spending. Not a reduction in proposed spending, but an actual reduction. Also, name one Republican who has eliminated one single department at the Federal level, or even attempted to.

You wonder where I get the idea that you are a big spender? Duh! You are backing big spenders. You won't even consider a small government conservative. What else am I supposed to assume from that? Give me ONE single fact about what you believe that proves otherwise. You have done nothing but make asinine statements about "trolls" and demanding that we leave and go to the Democrat Party.

You are so blind to your own self-righteousness that you act like you are just some innocent little civilian in this battle. How ridiculous! You haven't talked about one substantive issue in the entire time I have been here. You continually just mock and ridicule. Excuse me, but that's what Democrats do...it's not what Republicans are supposed to do. WE discuss the issues. At least, that is, until Saul took over the MIGOP. That's when issues didn't matter, just who got in the debates.

I have stated categorically what I believe:

1.bring troops in non-combat areas home.
2.Stop nation-building.
3.Monitor Iran, but don't attack until a war is declared and that based on data that shows we are iminently in danger.
4.Get rid of the Dept. of Education, HE&W, and Social Security to begin with.

5. Legalize marijuana, not just for medical but also recreational purposes.
   
6. Secure the borders, but liberalize immigration for those willing to come here legally.
   

8. Get the Federal Government out of my nutritional business, and out of my medical business.
   
9. We need more pro-life justices so that Roe v. Wade is finally and rightly overturned.
   
10. Repeal the Patriot Act, or at least those parts that overstep Constitutional authority.

Fine. I will leave, thanks to people like you. I will guarantee you though, if the GOP doesn't begin addressing what Dr Paul is asking them to consider, this country's life span will be short.

For those that insult Paul people or ask that they go to the Dem. side, that's stupid, and I condemn it as I did 30 responses ago. There are many things to like about Ron Paul, and he's far closer to us than he is the Dems. Reject him and his supporters at your (our) own peril.

You haven't proven anything yet.  In fact, you haven't answered who has donated to Ron Paul's campaign and where he's spoken at.  Let alone, does he endorse and adopt the views of every organization he speaks in front of?

You go further to assert I hold a certain view.  You need to prove I hold that view before I go defending or denying it.  

Didn't someone mention Federal Reserve Banks?  Is that why he takes money from Citibank?  Aren't some of these companies in favor of a North American Union?  A cursory search on "Home depot North American Union" brings up a few hits - and reference also UPS, AT&T, and HSBC.

So for those curious about who pays for Ron Paul - Here you go.

-----------------------------------
Contributed to Ron Paul between 1999-2007 (Congressional Campaign Only)

I think most people are, as I am, sick of Bush's "pussy-footin' around" over there. He has never taken an America First position. We are NOT over there protecting our interests the way we should.

The reason I support Paul are two-fold. 1) fiscal responsibility, and 2) Bush's failed foreign policy.

1. The other Republicans are neo-cons who believe that government is still the answer to our problems, rather than seeing that they ARE the problem. We need limited, small government; not continued growth of government with the private sector taking over the distribution of funds.

2. As I said earlier, Bush is pussy-footin' around in the Middle East. Our next President should either pick up the pace and kill the enemy, or get the hell out. The quagmire that we are in is not in anyone's best interest, let alone the U.S. Either we should get out entirely, or start blowing the hell out of our enemies. That's why Bush's ratings are so low.