"I'm an anti-war, pro-choice, spiritual but not religious, gun-rights supporter who has never owned a gun and a long-time registered Democrat."

and then this…

"Begrudgingly, I will once again vote Republican in November."

How does this make any sense? McCain is a neo-conservative who believes that pre-emptive wars of choice are the way forward for America in the 21st century. Kelly, saying that she is "anti-war", will vote for McCain anyway.

Kelly says she is "pro-choice"….and yet McCain-Palin have clearly stated that they will end Roe and throw it all back to the states. Totally unreconciliable.

One size doesn't fit all when it comes to voters. That's true. However, cognitive dissonance….and obvious contradictions in basic analysis….do not demonstrate clarity of purpose….or thought.

To suggest that the feds had to bend banks' arms to collect all those fees on trick mortgages they designed is just silly.

Deregulation, a Republican mantra, allowed those trick mortgages to be shuffled, bundled and sold without oversight or accountability…..or even proper accounting to know what they were buying and/or selling.

Thinking folks, according to you, should think that government coerced those resistant mortgage sellers into doing something they didn't want to have to do…..sell houses to minorities and the poor in some commie-socialist plot to destroy the country.

Thinking people know better.

However, the twin GSE's, Fannie and Freddie, are the reason we have this mortgage crisis. The government used them to manipulate the housing market. They did it intentionally. They cajoled the banks and Wall Street to act exactly as they did, and now the government is advocating MORE government to cure what the government started. Color me skeptical that they will accomplish that.

Ron Paul's comments may be theoretical, but they are sane, as compared to the current state of insanity that reigns in Washington D.C.

But I do understand your concern. I'm going back and forth on this issue myself. There are no easy answers.

Actually, Rev, I was against the Iraq war, but after we went into Iraq and removed Saddam, I thought it was essential that we succeed, so as not to destabilize the region further. Since I've mentioned this to you at least 50 times, I wonder how you can still misstate my position.

Not to mention that the subject at hand is the financial crisis, not the Iraq War.

If the FDIC had been forced to guarantee the deposits of Washington Mutual the Fund would have been mostly depleted and if you were a smart consumer you would have removed you cash from your neighborhood bank further removing capital from the credit markets and furthering the depth of your one bad year. I know conservatives don't like to hear this but there is a need for regulation and a need for big government.

In theory Mr. Paul might be right. However in the real world with real people the markets very rarely right themselves, because in the real world people must make choices to protect themselves and their families. This means that people don't usually respond in the way that mathematical models say is the correct way.

I firmly beleive we are two major bank failures away from 1929 – 1932. If you can't remember that time fully 1/2 of americans fully unemployed the rest working part-time and more than extremely happy to have any work at all. No credit markets most businesses working at less that 25% of 1928 output. If you think of that as one bad year you have alot more money than myself and my friends

Begrudgingly, I will once again vote Republican in November. The media and other stereotypers need to learn that voters can't be typecast. When they are at a loss to explain why someone would choose the "less liberal" candidate, they come up with an almost laughable reason: racism.

At heart, I'm really a Liberatarian and have been a Ron Paul supporter since he once ran for president as a Liberatarian. He has never stood a snowball's chance of being elected to the presidency, nor will Libertarianism ever be adopted as our official philosophy, because too many people have been conditioned to believe that big government is there for them.

I favor McCain over Obama because Obama is too liberal and thinks bigger government is the answer to everything. McCain is no great shakes, but he's the more conservative of the two. Period. Unfortunately, both are politicians and thus suspect.

If this country continues to march toward socialism with its liberal pc ways, I believe it is headed for failure. Take a look around the world. Socialism and its more intense cousin, communism, ultimately do not work, mostly because they tread against human nature by taking away the incentive to better oneself.

King believes, and has fully advocated for, the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive military adventurism, as has McCain. King and McCain agree on this MAJOR policy. King disagrees with Paul on this specific policy.

King agrees with the Libertarian Paul's words on the bailout because King says he's for fiscal conservancy, like Paul.

So what we have here is a bit of cafeteria conservatism masquerading as deeply held principles.

The bailout stunt is just that….a stunt. A political stunt initiated by the same Republicans whose economic policies created the mess in the first place. Voters know this and are threatening to kick the GOP to the curb…permanently, come November.

Thus the charade we've been watching the last 2 days.

Good lord, armaggedon is upon us.

AMEN!

I don't know the answers to this problem, but Paul's ideas are clearly better than any coming out of Washington. I agree with the Rs that people who overextended should not be bailed out and I agree with the Ds that corps that did the same thing should not be bailed out.

Paul, ridiculed and mocked by John McCain during the primary debates, now, according to Republican voters like King and larry, has the correct answers to our economic quagmire.

Can a Ron Paul write-in campaign be far behind.