Face it Anti War Liberals, Ron Paul is the only Pacifist choice.

Most of the Anti War Crowd will not vote for Ron Paul. First Ron Paul is a man of principal and will fight for what he believes. No the Anti War crowd will vote for the democrat who makes all kinds of promises to get their vote then ignore them after elected.

Absolutely true. And you don't seem to be getting any responses from the anti-war crowd. I think most of the anti-war BS is actually political animosity of the opposing Party to whoever is in office. Bush-haters loved to bring up war issues and now Obama-haters bring up war issues. It has nothing to do with really being anti-war, I fear. It's politics as usual.

You're assuming here that if someone is an "anti-war liberal" he or she doesn't care about any of the many other issues facing us. I think you know how much I'd love to see all of our troops come home YESTERDAY but that doesn't mean I'd be willing to risk everything else I care about. Ron Paul may be anti-FOREIGN-war but I fear if he were to ever become President we'd soon find ourselves in another civil war right here on our own soil, maybe several civil wars all at once. It would be whites against minorities and businesses against the working class for starters. Sure, maybe the troops would come home but to WHAT? Annie

I don't know that I would describe myself as a "pacifist per se'. I am not necessarily "anti-war" but, by the same token, I don't know anyone who is actually "pro-war" either. I believe war should be taken on when our national security is at immediate peril and that we should not extrapolate circumstances to arrive at that conclusion. I also don't think our national defense benefits from sticking our noses in to hornets nests around the world. One could argue this creates far more national security issues than it solves. I admittedly supported the Iraq war once it was under way, mostly because I believe that once your teams starts a game (even a game you don't agree with), you don't stand in the bleachers to hiss and boo them. I also bought in to the idea that Hussein was an immediate threat to our national security at the time. I was naive and I openly admit it. I became very disillusioned during the last few years of the Bush administration. So this is where the difference comes down to. How much war vs. how much not interfering does it take to keep us safe? This is where Ron Paul truly diverges from the majority of the federal government. Given a comparison of the two, Paul has been demonstrated time after time to be right(and not just in matters of national defense)...where as most of time, the federal government has been wrong...very wrong and with drastic consequences. I am on a quiet mission to convert Democrats. I simply point out what Obama has done vs what Paul would have done and ask them to compare the two men in the context of the person's personal ideology. I actually managed to convert one so far (lol, it's a work in progress). I would also add that I still strongly maintain that Ron Paul is the ONLY Republican who can beat Obama in the general election. If the Republicans nominate anyone else...they are looking at a second Obama term.

You're right. The only anti-war choice is Ron Paul. It will be interesting to see if some liberal Democrats come on and explain who they can be anti-war and continue to vote for Obama.