Yeah pretty much. Ron Paul is a Libertarian which puts his views a lot closer to those of the Anarchist than to a Conservative. Likewise many Anarchist views are opposed to the more Socialist and Communist views found on the left. So you get the "wild reckless youth" demographic from both sides of the aisle seeing something they like in Ron Paul, this age group is also more represented on the internet.

Libertarian is not anarchist. Oh God, you people seem to know nothing about politics...

Ron Paul in short:

Free market + personal freedom

Romney is just free market
And Obama is just personal freedom.

(in very simplified form)

He had/has an extreme opinion, but he is standing by it. In his blunt way, he is believable as somebody who says his "truth" no matter what others think. This is a stark contrast to normal politicians who weigh every word carefully and are corrupt usually. Ron Paul being old and not expecting much more from his career (I guess) has the image of standing above all this. Kind of a hero. At least it is entertaining listening to him instead of many others.

I remember one very good spot on youtube of Ron Paul.

This one?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Idw4LS19lvk&hd=1

It's amazing. Most of the people didn't get the message, though ;D

wasn't ron paul the guy who was asked the question about healthcare about a guy in a coma and should the government take care of him and he said:

"Well I think he should be free to do what ever he wants"

But he is in a COMA what the hell is he gonna do if he is out cold

Ron Paul in short: Nerd supremacist.

I want to be able to write a letter like "If I was in a coma for longer than a 3 years, just kill me"

But I can't. (in Poland) And this is what Ron Paul is talking about, most of the time.

now that one i understand at least

I like Ron Paul because he supports a return to the gold standard. I have a deep-seeded fear of the American dollar bottoming out on value within the next 15 years, leading to another depression.

I'd vote him fot MMMUUUUURRRRICA






(Why always the gay hate ;_;)

its sad that he has the lowest votes then all the other nominees

I think people fear him because they are afraid to make sacrifices from their lives to help bring about the change he represents. A lot of gov't funded programs go bye bye under his politics, which means a lot of people are gonna suddenly be without a hand they were holding onto. As a supporter, I would be understanding of these changes, but you get a lot of people together and they get scared of what he represents. The truth is, you can't have real change without sacrifice, and once people realize the sacrifices that come with true libertarian politics, they try to find a compromise and cast him off as a crazy old dolt. Majority viewpoints are a bitch. I think Tommy Lee Jones said it best in Men in Black:

"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it."

True. People are usually afraid of being free. They want to stay secure.

I'm afraid that govt. helping people taught them that govt. is to help people, not other people. It would be difficult to set their minds into "you should help people around you if you can" state. With much smaller taxes people would be capable of helping others, but the difference would be, all the money you give them goes to them.

But sadly, people's minds don't work that way.

I think you may be confusing anarchist and Anarchist. One is a "Screw Authority" minded troublemaker the other follows a philosiphy that central government is unnecessary, that people should be free to make thier own choices without a nanny state telling them what they can or cannot do and that these free people can not only take care of themselves but also each other. This philosophy is called Anarchism. The biggest difference is that Libertarians still want a central government just one that cannot wield much power over it's citizens. Both represent the furthest forms of government from an Authoritative State that each side has to offer. If you align your self with either of these two beliefs and I have offended you by calling you the other then I apologize, I was merely showing how two group that are expected to be diametrically opposed can come together behind a single spokesperson. If you still feel I am mistaken then I welcome your explanation on how and why.