He was previously at 15-1 and just a few months ago at 200-1.

Check it out here:

http://www.sportsbook.com/sportsbook/livelines.php

As of right now—the CP is more home to me than the LP could be.
There are less crazies (Although the crazies are a different type. Religious as opposed to Truthers). The LP’s pro-choice, open-borders, anarchist positions are just too much for me.
Despite the the fact that i wish roads and the military COULD be privatized, I dont see it working. The anarcho-capitalists that control the LP do think it could happen, and that shows an even larger disconnect from reality than the rest of us (c’mon,we’re in third parties…). Third party victory is already an unlikely scenario, so if you are going to attempt to fight uphill, you dont do it with rollerblades on (the LP).
After all consideration, im REALLY just hoping Paul can win the nomination. That would be enough for me.

He wants to MONITOR the flow of ILLEGAL immigrants into the country?

i.e. put little birdies on the border and watch people come over. It will still be illegal, though.

Mike Gravel should hire me as a copy writer. That’s assuming, of course, that Joey Dauben doesn’t get me a job with Wayne Root.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzHa_Hbf27s

As for “national language,” as this power is not authorized in the Constitution, I am opposed to it. The federal government should conduct its business in English, but it should just be conducting less business. States can have “state languages,” but they shouldn’t try to impose them on schools. Schools and other local services should cater to their local bases.

Your days in the CP are numbered, Trent. That prediction is the highest compliment I can pay.

Although it has earned me some dissent in the CP, I advocate for free-trade and larger immigration quotas.

Paul is not a racial collectivist on immigration, he simply ascribes to the belief that a nation without borders is not one. Adam Smith did the same I believe.

Hey, I would still vote for Ron Paul. I’m more concerned about his wacky economic views than I am about his refusal to disavow past racist statements made in his name. But I think he is a racial collectivist on immigration, and I think he shows an unnatural tolerance for white supremacists who cotton to his message, and that makes me uncomfortable. You yourself said you would not go to a League of the South meeting because of the racism of many of its members. If the LotS is not a racist organization, then it tolerates racism on a whole other level than Ron Paul, and I don’t think private individuals can morally tolerate racism of such an overt degree.

Im in a host of Ron Paul groups. And any time this was brought up,everyone was quick to say—-if we DID find Paul was a racist—we’d drop him.
That includes a 13,000 member group.
The fact is, he has denied the crappy statements made by some staffer/ghostwriter.
The evidence is there. He disavowed the words, and preaches against collectivism often.
He fired the staffer just a few days after the article came to his attention (Maybe the staffer WAS Dondero,and thats why he wont jump on it?)
As for the League of the South, although it has many racist MEMBERS. It is not neccesarily a racist organization. I wouldnt go to a meeting because your gauranteed to find at least SOME racism there. The fact is, it is well known that Paul is NOT a racist. Of all the Republicans who you could accuse of racism, Paul is the weakest arguement. You are pitting a 3 paragraph article in a ghostwritten, barely-circulated, newsletter from 1997 against his life’s work. He has black, hispanic, asian, and jewish supporters/staffers and has preached against collectivism since 1976.

My previous posts were meant to:

A. Point out the silliness in the argument

B. Point out the inconsistency/hypocrisy in those making the argument

C. Point out how some will really reach to smear him (They certainly cannot do it by his voting record.)

D. Point out he has addressed the matter years ago and denied making such statements

Furthermore he does not have a track record of making such statements.

How about Giuliani also come forward to address his marital affair? Would that make sense?

His opponents are bringing it up online—which is where most of Paul’s upport lies anyway. If you ask me, he’s making the calculated decision that distancing himself from the racist statements he’s made will cost him more votes than it will protect. If you think that this stuff WON’T come out if he actually makes any kind of run for the nomination, you are on street drugs.

And if you truly believe he is racist you should call on the LP to terminate his membership.

If you check out the 10/1/2001 issue of Texas Monthly he addresses the matter directly.

Similarly I’m sure Giuliani has denied mob ties in the past. The point is he addressed the matter IN THE PAST. What would be the point of bringing up the topic now? It would only bring negativity to yourself and your campaign.

Neither Giuliani nor Tancredo are libertarians.

As for Giuliani, he has denied mob connections many times in the past… but no libertarian I know of is calling for the LP to shut down operations to support HIM. Nor Tom Tancredo.

Again, see the Giuliani comparision. Is the idea of Giuliani being “connected” an issue now? It’s not. (At least not that I’ve seen in the MSM.) Similarly should Romney come out and say in the next debate, “And for the record I’m not a bigamist or a proponent of bigamy?” Of course not.

Those of you who make the baseless accusation that RP is a racist and hates immigrants should be jumping all over Tom Tancredo. In the last debate Tancredo suggested there should be a limit on even legal immigration. The moderator seemed to find that concept strange. Note that New Zealand and Australia use such a system. Accordingly this should repulse you and I trust you’ll be showing consistency and crossing those destinations of your “must visit” list while launching some “Tancredo is a racist” or “Steve Irwin was a white supremacist” banter.

Don’t forget to start boycotting Outback Steakhouses too.