192 votes

A call for unity between Paul supporters and Johnson supporters.

I have seen the war between Ron Paul supporters and Gary Johnson supporters and I think it is rather silly that people in this movement have such a hard time following Ron Paul's advice. It is pretty simple to me.

We can not force our goodwill on anyone, we can only set good examples and hope people wish to emulate us. --Ron Paul

My suggestion would be that if you support Gary Johnson, fine support him. That is what freedom is. If you support Ron Paul, fine. Most of us here do support Ron Paul and have for several years. If you support both fine, but lets stop eating our own.

The goal should be to grow the liberty movement not divide it. Great movements are always destroyed from within, not the other way around.

I have seen the arguments from both sides and many statements are misguided. The whole notion that some claim they are turned off on Gary Johnson because Johnson supporters are trying to cram Johnson down your throats is the same excuse where many called people that didn't support Ron Paul sheep because, those people claimed they wouldn't support Ron Paul because Ron Paul supporters tried to force Paul on them. Do you see how silly that argument is?

How can anyone force anyone else to support someone?

My suggestion would be if you are not going to support Johnson fine, don't result to name calling of Johnson supporters, this makes you no better than the people that did the same thing to Ron Paul that pisses us off. Talking to people in a civil manner goes a long way, insulting them is counter productive and will accomplish nothing more than to isolate people that may share many of the same things you support.

You may not like the people you are working with, they may not like you, but we are all supposed to be working towards the same goal. So why don't we start with the things we agree on first and worry about the rest later?

Michael Badnarik said this best: We agree with each other about 98% of the time on most issues but, we spend 98% of the time b!tching, complaining and arguing about the 2% we disagree on, this is why nothing gets done, and he is correct!

You don't like a post? Don't read it, it is easy to ignore posts and comments. You don't have to agree with people but you do need to find a way to work together to grow the movement and attempt to effect real change this country needs or we will accomplish nothing. Take the high road and let freedom work for a change.

For the record I have not given my support to Gary Johnson although I did spend some private time with him at Paulfest in Tampa because I was paulfest staff and had access to Gary. My vote is just that MY VOTE! I will not tell others what to do with their vote -- please don't tell others what to do with theirs. Set good examples and educate them in a civil manner, you will win more people over that way in the long and short term.

If we continue down this US vs THEM attitude we only divide our numbers even more. I prefer to follow Ron Paul's example of integrity and I hope you will as well.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I didn't look at Johnson,

I didn't look at Johnson, despite people posting about him, till the RNC convention.

"You vote how you llike and I'll vote how I like."

Is the same as "I give up in this conversation. I'm going to keep ignoring the valid points about the positive things that happen for the country and movement if I supported Johnson, regardless of whether he's a libertarian or not."

I'd rather be a libertarian novice... like him... than someone who thinks they've figured out libertarianism but doesn't even act like one... like you.

You're going to vote the way you do... but that doesn't change the fact that you're ignoring positive change for the country and liberty movement with the national debates and our takeover of the GOP with a libertarian candidate in 2016... the same exact thing as sabotaging that potential.

Pointing out our freedom to choose what we do isn't telling anyone anything except that you understand you might be sabotaging this potential for all of us... but don't care to make sure that you're not.

So much for you respecting others' liberty.

I respect yours... but I don't respect what you do with it.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

Hmmm!

What I am trying to do is NOT get thrown off this site. I guess I must respond at least a bit more forcefully, though.

I know little about Johnson's views, but Johnson's stance on abortion is a deal-breaker for me. Just because I said I could support someone with whom I only agree about 50%, does not mean that there are not deal-breakers!

It appears that you believe Johnson is similar to Paul and I don't--just as I did not consider Barr to be a libertarian candidate in the 2008 election cycle. In addition, if you think Johnson could possibly win, then you need to follow your own advise and enter reality. HE WILL NOT WIN!

My response about "You vote as you like, I vote as I like" is in no way, shape or form an "I give up" statement--I said it in my original comment!! It's a statement of respecting the rights of others, respecting their right to think differently, to vote differently, to believe differently--something you obviously need to learn about! At the same time, it does NOT mean that I won't state my opinion, or speak my mind.

John Quincy Adams: "...Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost..."

Voting for Johnson would be voting against my principles...due to his abortion stance PLUS as already stated, it would be against my principles to reward treachery (by voting for Johnson)...

O.P.O.G.G. - Fighting the attempted devolution of the rEVOLution
Ron Paul 2012...and beyond
BAN ELECTRONIC VOTING!!

1. There are libertarian

1. There are libertarian principles at the core of valid arguments on both sides of the abortion issue. A valid argument doesn't counter a valid argument, but that doesn't stop people from turning a belief into such a part of their identity and ego that it's enough to say "MY WAY IS THE ONLY WAY!" Abortion is a gray area whether you feel it is or not. I'm pro-life and I can make that observation.

2. BOTH Paul and Johnson are for states' rights. Aka... neither of their personal beliefs regarding abortion are relevant since it would be up to the people in their state.

3. You're CHOOSING to ignore potential because of an irrelevant personal belief of someone else. I just pointed out a fallacious excuse... whether you like it or not.

4. I've used that same quote in a post I wrote... you should check it out. http://www.dailypaul.com/251148/should-we-write-in-dr-paul-i...

5. Which principle is more important to you? Promoting the cause of liberty at every chance you get and avoiding the sabotage of that potential OR voting for who you want as president regardless of whether they can win or not?

Yes... that's the choice you're making.

The ONLY way you can choose the latter is if you convince yourself that you're not sabotaging the cause of liberty... which you clearly would be... as explained in the linked post.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

Arrogant much?

#1 and 3 - It is only your opinion that the abortion issue is irrelevant. It's very relevant to me...whether you like it or not! LOL It's only your opinion that the abortion issue is a gray area. In other words, who are you to say what's irrelevant and/or gray??? What makes you think that your opinion is any more important than anyone else's opinion??

#2 - While I agree that it's a states' rights' issue, I still would not vote for someone whose viewpoint RE abortion differs from my own; ditto on the issue of war(s). Those two issues are the most important to me.

#4 I've used that quote in the past, as well. I clicked on the link--it takes me to a thread penned by you. There it appears you are also trying to sway others to your way of thinking. It does not seem to be working.

#5 I cannot answer--Johnson just does not fit either scenario IN MY OPINION!! Voting for Johnson would not be promoting the cause of liberty, nor would it be a scenario of me voting for whom I wanted to be president...

Well, it's after 2 AM and I have appointments tomorrow morning...so it's off to bed I go...

O.P.O.G.G. - Fighting the attempted devolution of the rEVOLution
Ron Paul 2012...and beyond
BAN ELECTRONIC VOTING!!

No, Just Assertive... and with Reason

1&3: I did not say it was "irrelevant to you". I said it was irrelevant to what would come of his personal beliefs. If he puts states' rights BEFORE his beliefs like Paul does... how does his personal belief affect you?

It affects you in the same way the president's religion affects you. No other way.

Your logic is the same as if someone said they wouldn't vote for Paul because he was Christian, EVEN IF he didn't push it on anyone else.

Sure, it's their right... but trading all the good that would come from Paul or Johnson compared to what either other candidate offer for the sake of my PERSONAL bias? That's downright selfish.

If there are valid arguments on both sides of an issue... THAT makes it a gray area.

"But it's life!" doesn't invalidate "It's a risk to the mother's life!" or "It impede's on the liberty of the rape victim!" or "The mother isn't fit to be a mother and not willing to give up for adoption!" or "She's a drug addict that will pass on the addiction!", etc etc etc

ALL of which have libertarian principles at their core.

Your PERSONAL beliefs make you FEEL as though only one answer is right, but that doesn't make it the only valid argument. You need critical thinking, not just emotional.

These aren't opinions. They're facts... whether you like it or not.

2: To vote for your personal agenda, and so much in fact that you're willing to intentionally look at facts inaccurately, is the equivalent of someone choosing to vote for a president regardless of the good they would do because of their religion or race.

4: That post isn't a "way of thinking". IF you actually TRIED to understand what was said rather than CHOOSE to use selective hearing, you would have seen me explain how I came to the factual strategy that I did so others COULD see that I wasn't just some Gary Johnson fanboy as people have attempted claiming.

The fact that you couldn't put the points of my post into YOUR OWN words, shows that not only did you not understand what you read, but you THEN felt as though you could comment on it as though you did understand it when you did not. I say that with such assertiveness, NOT "arrogance" because you've already proven that you didn't understand it. I'm challenging you to do what I know you cannot. And because you take this as arrogance, you'll either try and fail or come up with an excuse to not try. Isn't understanding human behavior great?

Feel free to keep claiming things that aren't true. It's not me trying to sway people to my way of thinking. It's me pointing out facts and hoping that people have the common sense to act on them. But I suppose we know how common sense isn't all that common.

5: "Johnson just does not fit either scenario"... that sentence PROVES that you didn't understand the post I linked you to. Then you claim that voting for Johnson wouldn't promote the cause of liberty even though my post explains how it would.

You're making a baseless claim without invalidating my evidence that I've offered you. That's the equivalent of you saying "The sky's red", me saying "It's blue, look up", and you CHOOSING to not look up and go "No, it's red".

So that "Reason" that I mention in the title of this response... I'm assertive because you have clearly showed countless times here that you A. Don't understand what you're responding to, but telling yourself you do B. Ignoring evidence and valid logic and C. Use fallacious reasoning and excuses to keep believing what you WANT to believe despite the contrary evidence that you CHOOSE to not consider sitting right in front of you.

A + B + C = You're willfully ignorant and I might as well be talking to a wall.

Pathological Denial/Self-Deceit is a real b****. You can't handle admitting you're in it in order to get of it. Might as well be in a hole, walking in circles, and telling yourself you're getting somewhere.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

If he

puts states' rights BEFORE his beliefs like Paul does... how does his personal belief affect you? (You asked.) It doesn't! Where did I state that it did? What part of I would not vote for ANYONE (even Ron Paul if he held differing views) who is pro-choice and/or pro-war (except for the just war theory) did you not understand? What part of I have principles and morals don't you get? What part of "I consider abortion murder" don't you get--I will not vote for anyone who condones murder. It's a moral issue. It matters not to me what EXCUSES are used for abortion--to me, it's murder.

What part of I am writing in Ron Paul don't you get? What part of Gary Johnson does not constitute a liberty candidate (imo) don't you get? I am not voting for Romney due to his treachery--I will not reward treachery. I will not consider Johnson (Although it's actually a moot point, since I consider him a fake anyway) due to the treachery of his supporters. Does Doctor Paul not talk about being respectful, etc.?? SOMETIMES, the complaints on other forums about Paul supporters have been valid...and imo, the complaints here about the disrespectful behavior of GJ supporters prior to the RNC are valid.

If everyone on this planet had the same views, the same thoughts, the same ideas, it would be a fairly boring place.

Give me a libertarian candidate with whom I agree at least 50%, but said candidate must be pro-life and anti-war, and I'd consider voting for them in the future.

Number 4 I will partially concede to you--I DID not read your post you linked to in its entirety--because I just don't care enough about you or your views to do so. I choose not to waste my time thus. I do remember thinking as I was scanning your linked thread and comments that you seem to trust electronic voting machines--I don't. Imo, the voting results will reflect what TPTB want them to reflect.

So, continue to call me names. You will not change me. I am very strong inside. Your opinion of me does not affect my opinion of myself, does not affect my ability to sleep at night nor does not affect anything of importance in my life. I am wondering if perhaps you have no principles or morals--and that is why you cannot understand the thinking/feeling of others who do!! I believe that part of the reason this country is in such dire straits is because "we" have compromised our morals and principles. Does Dr. Paul not say that the Constitution was written for a moral and religious people?? (quoting J. Adams)

Btw, assertive people don't call names, but aggressive ones do...and I don't mean an occasional name-calling due to losing one's temper, either. Selective hearing? From reading something?

O.P.O.G.G. - Fighting the attempted devolution of the rEVOLution
Ron Paul 2012...and beyond
BAN ELECTRONIC VOTING!!

1. Feel free to quote these

1. Feel free to quote these "names" I called you that you're taking offense to. I think you are exaggerating, misconstruing, or outright choosing what you hear.

2. Simple question for you... what shows that you're against the violation of the NAP more?

A: Doing something to reduce the amount of NAP violation
OR
B: Saying you're against the violation of NAP

I'll be waiting for your answer to this simple question. Feel free to come up with excuses to avoid answering it.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

Okay, I

am done here with you. The following was not insulting, was not name-calling on your part?:
"...A + B + C = You're willfully ignorant and I might as well be talking to a wall.

Pathological Denial/Self-Deceit is a real b****. You can't handle admitting you're in it in order to get of it. Might as well be in a hole, walking in circles, and telling yourself you're getting somewhere..."

And I'm not the only one you talk to this way. For the most part, you are insulting to anyone with whom you disagree.

And again, how does one have selective hearing when reading something, Mr. Psychologist? Let's talk about projection, shall we?

It's like this: Your accusations towards me remind me of someone who wants me to look over here at the right hand, while you're doing something shady with the left. Your behavior reminds me of cointelpro, to be frank. NEWSFLASH: I DON'T HAVE TO ANSWER YOU.

If you're not cointelpro, then in my opinion, you should be asking yourself why you care what I think. And, btw, I am not the only one here who disagrees with your opinions. You will not change my mind, I've frankly stated that fact, yet you continue to allegedly try to do so--this makes me question your agenda.

And just so you know, the over-usage of abbreviations (NAP) in today's world is one of my pet peeves. If it's not spelled out, and I don't know its meaning, rarely will I take the time to google it/learn its meaning. NAP = not a problem?

O.P.O.G.G. - Fighting the attempted devolution of the rEVOLution
Ron Paul 2012...and beyond
BAN ELECTRONIC VOTING!!

1. No, that's an

1. No, that's an observation/conclusion fully backed up by the previous explanation. AGAIN, you are CHOOSING to take it as an insult when it's not one. Of course when someone feels like their credibility is being put into question they're going to take it personally EVEN THOUGH that is their CHOICE to do so. A sane and rational person would say "he made a point" and deal with it OR would prove I was wrong by showing the invalid reasoning. Apparently we don't have many sane people here... or is "not sane" an insult also?

2. You're implying that I'm insulting someone that doesn't agree with me when I've never said or implied this. You're putting words in my mouth (add that to A+B+C). I make conclusions based on observations. If a person disagreed with me and was able to prove me wrong... then I would admit I was wrong when I couldn't invalidate their own evidence and reasoning. Most people can only attack what I say with fallacies which I easily invalidate myself. I point out observations of people that they in their own words prove.

Feel free to disagree with me, but make sure to be able to back it up if you're going to open your mouth... otherwise you deserve what you get. Making fallacious and assumptious claims is in itself "insulting". Luckily for me I don't feel insulted... I realize the reality of it... them putting themselves below me. They do the work for me.

3. The fact that you put words in my mouth as I mentioned shows that you either didn't understand clear English or you chose to hear something the way you wanted to, "selective hearing". Which one was it? I'll wait for your answer... but I doubt I'll get it.

I've been told by both professional psychologists, counselors, lawyers, etc etc, as well as family and friends my whole life that I would have made an excellent psychologist or lawyer if that's what I wanted to be. If you want to try mocking my ability to make clear observations that most choose to ignore or neglect without honest reasoning or critical thinking... feel free. You only make yourself look foolish with your assuming and childish comment. I'm sorry... was that also "insulting"? Do you now need to tell yourself you weren't insulted again so you can feel like you're above these words or me some more? I see through you and the intention in every word you say... intentions you would never even consciously admit to yourself as you would never want to acknowledge how sh***y of a person you actually are underneath the false sense of respect.

4. You don't have to answer me. Thank you for using that excuse as a reason to not answer a simple question... while deciding to respond to EVERYTHING ELSE I've said. Please, contradict yourself more... keep telling yourself that "I don't have to answer you" is a valid reason to not answer a simple question while spending your time writing paragraphs... when in reality it's a cop out to avoid the answer you yourself don't want to give. Why is that? Because you would be incriminating yourself with your own honesty. You know Jan Helfed? Yeah... I ask those kinds of questions. At the point that people WANT to say "I don't have to answer you!" is the time they usually walk out of the interview.

You are not above me. I'll accept that we're equals... but you are by far not even close to above me in any which way that really matters.

5. Large numbers of people that agree with each other only means they're all right or all wrong. Numbers don't mean anything. That's a well known fallacy. I'd say "nice try", but it wasn't at all. You're only proving me right even more.

6. "You will not change my mind". No s**t. I never expected to... as I've pointed out before, I believe you to be willfully ignorant like many others on this site and elsewhere. You really think this is all for the sake of changing YOUR mind? LOL This is for the sake of any 3rd party that happens to come upon this that has an open mind and wants to see both sides of the argument. In this case... my side demolishing yours. You won't see it that way... but that's to be expected.

5. I'm sorry, I thought all self-proclaimed libertarians knew what "NAP" was. "Non-Aggression Principle". My bad for assuming. Thank you for taking the time to write paragraphs to someone you don't care about the opinions of and think you're above, but not any time to try and educate yourself so you can understand what you're even reading. God forbid someone understood what they were reading before they replied to it.

This isn't arrogance. It's assertiveness with PLENTY of good reason behind it (as shown and explained). As I've pointed out, your response only proves me more right regarding the "A+B+C" about you.

If I were you, I wouldn't feel insulted. I would feel embarrassed.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

.

No one here will dispute Ron Paul is no fraud.

on the other hand, many here think GJ is a FRAUD, and Im one of them.
a fraud is a fraud is a fraud. GJ is a fraud on so many levels.

"OH NO! He has a SON?" Neoconservatives and Liberals EVERYWHERE!

Rand Paul 2016

He's a good guy who hasn't

He's a good guy who hasn't put all his positions through a libertarian process.

Maybe he's just a simple guy who knows how to do small fiscal conservative government and believes in the golden rule.

Maybe the LP chose him as their candidate because they didn't think libertarians would hate on him so bad... or maybe that he was the only candidate with outstanding credentials regarding career in government to contrast both Obama's and Romney's own executive records while in office.

Maybe they expected libertarians to give him a chance.

He's WILLING TO LISTEN to libertarians on his positions. Even on the wenzel interview he acknowledged that he wasn't as educated and was learning something. Do you really think that wasn't a wake up call?

If anyone here is a fraud... it's the self-proclaimed libertarians that stroke their egos all day every day and trade a great chance to grow the movement and spread the cause of liberty via national debates, showing the similarities to the nation between Obama and Romney RATHER THAN forcing the nation to focus on finding their differences for the sake of their "he's not a TRUUUUEEE libertarian" bias. Trading an opportunity to make our numbers officially known to the GOP so they know why they lost or lost by a VERY small margin... so they won't make the same mistake again in 2016 if they want to hold onto any kind of advantage in a power struggle after they've already acknowledged their party is being taken over... all so you can tell yourself you're a "true libertarian".

These are facts. Not opinions.

You're the fraud. A libertarian doesn't sabotage potential for positive change in the world or their country. A libertarian doesn't pass up on a chance to help restore government to the constitution defending institution it was meant to be.

But I guess it's your freedom to do so.
You must feel so noble.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

Liberty Movement Via Ron Paul or Gary Johnson

Sure individuals can stop harming each other or sniping. The Presidential race is virtually awash this election. We have a choice between a neo con and a socialist/facism idealouge. If you wish to support or work for Gary Johnson/Virgil Goode, then realize neither has a real shot at the Presidency.

in 2012, the numbers game puts Ron Paulat 2.1 Million primary votes out of 19-20 million.

2012 General election LP candidate Gary Johnson 500-750k votes out of 130-140 million. Does anyone not pay attention to the arthimetic? If you want our ideals implemented in the Presidency, then wait for a Rand Paul candidacy. Our movement needs to grow to ten million strong to win the GOP Presidential primary and over 70-80 million in the general election. If you do not understand that if Ron Paul cannot get elected someone with less influence/resources such as Gary Johnson or Virgil Goode does not have a real prayer.

"The goal should be to grow

"The goal should be to grow the liberty movement"

I've offered a strategy for all of us to help the liberty movement grow... but it gets hated on because it includes voting for Gary Johnson .

People are putting their loyalty to Paul and libertarian philosophy before any integrity.

Winning strategy for the liberty movement and our GOP takeover that Gary Johnson haters discredit for selfish and fallacious reasons.
http://www.dailypaul.com/251148/should-we-write-in-dr-paul-i...

Until the self-proclaimed "truth-seekers" here learn to deal with truths they don't like... they'll remain close-minded and sabotage the movement's potential.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

Gary Johnson and Promotion of the Liberty Movement

okay, so say the 2.1 million Ron Paul Republicans voters select Gary Johnson and somehow you convince few hundred thousand normal LP voters to gotv for Johnson. So now the liberty movement grows to 2.7 or so million people. How do get to ten million to win the nomination in the future or seventy million plus to win the general election? What has been done since the early 1970s is not working. Give me options or than the route US Senator Rand Paul is choosing.

Paul himself said he figured

Paul himself said he figured his votes were 2-3 times the number he got because of those uncomfortable with voting in the Republican primaries (like my own father who loves Paul, but can't stand social conservationism and that stereotype of a Republican). Then just like Jess Ventura running as 3rd party in his state for governor started at 10% and ended up winning because of the debates... the same can happen here... especially when the other two candidates are more of the same, 46% of Americans have been polled saying they feel like they only have "two evils" to choose between and 60-80% have said they're willing to consider a 3rd party candidate... a 3rd party has a chance.

NOW... it's still not easy... and even though I think he makes a better president than a piece of paper that says "Ron Paul" on it... you're still missing how big of an impact Johnson being in the debates will make. And not just in 2012 either. If the GOP loses or wins by a small margin WHILE a 3rd Party candidate has a huge number compared to the 1%'s of the past... they will 1. Realize they (almost) lost because they lost the Ron Paul and 2 party disenfranchised voters 2. Won't feel like they can afford losing us again through cheating and alienating 3. Might even promote a candidate we want as they want to win (by a larger margin) in 2016.

You're comparing the 70's to 2012?

Have you really not paid attention to the impact the internet has made?

Paul's support DOUBLED in 4 years time BECAUSE of the internet.

Knowing what you're talking about is required if you're going to be living here in reality... unless you want to keep sabotaging potential with your ever unknowing carelessness.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

Correction

2.1 million is only from the Republican primaries, in which only about 10% of the republicans participated. About 50-60% people vote in the general elections so this number grows to 10-12 million votes. In addition, there are little less than 30% Republicans and a little more than 30% Democrats and about 40% independents. Most of the independents don't like either Romney or Obama and may vote for Johnson, which may put the total number to 30-40 million votes. This can happen only if the elections are not rigged. Does this make sense?

if Gary Johnson...

Write a blog on the daily Paul or gives us an exclusive interview with our questions answered directly, then we should give him a shot. If Gary Johnson what's our support, tell him to bring his happy ass over here and tell us why we should support. Not to be cynical...

'Peace is a powerful message.' Ron Paul

No offense but Ron Paul

No offense but Ron Paul didn't knock on your door

He posts on Google+ all the

He posts on Google+ all the time. Why not make what amounts to a really minor effort and contact him yourself? Are you saying you're more busy than a person running for president? Get off your high horse. If you want your belly rubbed, Obama's your man.