Ron Paul

Heads up bro - Libertarians did not invent the term, nor concept of liberty. You have no claim to the phrase, nor do you have the right to exclude other groups from using the term Liberty. Liberty is not a physical thing, it is a human notion, and one that no two humans share the same view on. As such, nobody can claim to stand for liberty. There is no physical way to do it. If you don't want the legitimacy of your political opinions to be compared to those of a mentally impaired four year old, stop saying that. Seriously.

Obama

What the fuck are you talking about?!

No, Libertarian philosophy and ideals are, for the most part, dumb. I despise the idea of sacrificing liberties for equality, but some equalities guarantee liberty. The civil rights act is one of these. Is giving people the "liberty" to refuse a black man seating in their restaurant really worth sacrificing man's right to eat where he wants? Hell, walk where he wants? I don't think so. By changing laws like that, your damaging your beloved "liberty" more than your increasing it.

The status quo presented by all the other candidates is far superior to the society and country Paul brings to the table.

Extremism is usually judged by the status quo of the current ruling part of government. And by that standard, Ron Paul is definitely a extremist. Within the context of a libertarian party, he isn't extreme.

He hasn't completely screwed the country yet, has he?

The dichotomy between liberty and tyranny is an extremely simple one. Liberty can be divided into two forms, liberty from (civil liberty) and liberty to (civil rights). Conversely, tyranny would be the exercise of power beyond right. There's not a whole hell of a lot of room for interpretation there.

If nobody can stand for liberty, then no one can stand for anything. An extremely small group of people rejecting the proper definition of a word doesn't actually change the utility of the word.

u mad

Still shit.

Sometimes violence is nessesary to stop oppression/genocide/mass murder and while I do not support an invasion of Iran or Pakistan at the moment, I'm on the fence on the previous invasions of Irak and Afghanistan because the regimes were so(for lack of a better word) bad.

To think you can reason with everyone is naive at best and dangerous at worst. I'm all for peace, love and harmony if you(in the sense of governments) are, however when you decide to gas your own people and kill thousands(and mabye even more than a million) then I think an invasion is justified. The people living in Iraq had tried to overthrow him several times and failed, and it didn't look like it would get any better.

No, I'm pretty sure "I'm" pulling most/all combat troops out of Iraq...

The goal was/is to depose Saddam and institute a free and stable democracy.(with some shadier goals regarding oil/influence) Stabilization takes time and "I" didn't say that would happen in a year.

I'm from Denmark... I don't think my nation will "collapse and run out of money." Denmark has one of the most healthy economies in Europe/the first world and our presense in Iraq is minimal now.

Everyone except the people getting killed for having the same political ideals as you or because they're some kind of minority and the rest of the population oppressed. How can you ignore their suffering?

What irrationality? This is not about what the US has done in general in the Middle East, but if the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan can be morally justified.

It is my last and least appealing solution, but sometimes you have to do things you don't want. When did I ever say it was?

Edit: Are you saying "Violence is never the answer?"

We deposed Saddam Hussein and stopped his mass murder and genocide of political enemies and minorities. We instituted a democracy, and while it is still weak, in time it will grow stronger.

That's just plain wrong. Attacks on western troops have decreased each year.(since 2005 I think)

Considering we've already withdrawed all combat troops from Iraq, I think we're making pretty good progress

Ouch, Personal Insult. Doesn't that seem a bit odd coming from a mod... Not appropriate behaviour.
By not doing anything about him, you might as well.

And that can still be combined with democracy and stability(not political stability, but state stability)

And we could have taken the easy way out, but I think compassion is an important human trait, and I can't in good conscience leave the Iraqi people to their cruel fate in the hands of a ruthless dictator.

So we should only help people if we can benefit from it? Doens't that strike you as a bit cold?

So I guess we shouldn't have done anything about Hitler then... That makes perfect sense.(I realise the cliché, but it was justified in this case)
Another comparison is saying that you shouldn't bathe or clean your house because it/you just get dirty again.

Oh Afghanistan is a totally different matter, but the spike was because the US and the Coalition went on a massive offensive.

Yeah I wasn't really hurt, but I still felt I had to point it out

Doesn't mean we shouldn't try, and the chances of it being succesful are not as small as you think.

But how can you as a supporter of democracy and human rights stand by while a dictator slaughters his people?

More innocent Iraqis would have died if we had done nothing.(or just imposed sanctions) He had already committed genocide and mass murder. Can you imagine what he would do with another 10 years at his disposal?