TexasCHLforum.com

lbuehler325 wrote:First of all, Ron Paul is Pro-Life. It is the main distinguisher from him and Gary Johnson (the very successful NV governor, former 2012 Republican primary candidate, and now the Libertarian Party Presidential candidate).

Rep. Paul has been consistent in his assertion that the exercise of one's liberty is not to be infringed, so long as it does not infringe on another's ability to exercise their liberty. Abortion, while it can be argued is a personal choice, is opposed by Dr. Paul, and he has stated such many times over, because it prevents the unborn child from his/her right to life (part of the whole, life, liberty, property premise John Locke introduced us all to).

As someone who's faithfully been a Republican since turning 18, and voting for Dole, GWB, GWB, and McCain (sometimes while holding my nose), and watching the Republican party spend us into debt nearly as quickly as the Dems, I am questioning how much better a Romney administration would be compared to a truly principled, small government, pro-liberty administration. The conclusion I have come to is: a Romney administration is one based on expanded government, expanded spending, corporate welfare, restricted firearms rights, socialized medicine, and higher taxes. To say anything but this is pure ignorance of the facts about what came about under Romney's Massachusetts administration. The funny thing is, it all sounds just like what a second Obama term would bring about; just not as fast. So is slower progression toward socialism good, simply because Romney has an R behind his name?

If this is what the Republican party stands for, I will find myself leaving the party. Call it punishment, call it "a vote for Paul is a vote for Obama" (and it's not, it's a vote for Paul, a principled vote, a vote for who I believe is the best hope for our Bill of Rights, a vote for the direction I want to see in my country and my party), call it whatever you want. If the Republican party decides to move down that road toward socialism, why should we support it? You may chose to do that, but I, for one, will not do so. We either need to get right or choose to go bankrupt, all the while losing our liberties. I've chosen to get right. If the Republicans nominate Romney, they don't deserve my ongoing support, as it will not represent my values.

And oh, by the way, Romney cannot defeat Obama (in my opinion), as he will not attract libertarian minded Republicans, independents, Libertarians, and pro-liberty democrats the way only Ron Paul can. And so many of these people will refuse to vote for Romney, that the general election will end up being a landslide on par with that of 1996.

And oh by the way again, bringing the vast majority of our troops stateside is bad how? We can maintain force levels and training, while having our soldiers spend their earnings in the domestic market, and maintaining force flexibility to actually defend the United States. Notice how, under an Obama administration, we are seeing a significant RIF, but military spending continues to grow; so where's that money going? A: it's going to defense contractors and defense firms, not our soldiers. Romney would bring more of the same.