Maybe you haven’t figure this out yet, but antiwar.com is a libertarian website. What you think is a scathing condemnation of Ron Paul, is, in fact, high praise. The man has a consistent Constitutionalist position and sticks with it, even when not politically advantageous to himself.

Also last time I checked, the cultural Bolsheviks don’t yet have the power to lock people up for saying unkind or unflattering things about certain “politically protected” classes of people, even though their commissars have unconstitutionally seized for themselves a lot of unofficial power to punish anyone who dares to defy their diktats, “freedom of speech” be damned.

Go Ron Paul.

I agree with Christopher Hitchens on this point. Mother Teresa had millions of dollars and who knows where they went because they were certainly not spent in these places.

On the other hand, I heard the Hitchens/ Galloway debate on Democracy Now a few years ago, and Hitchens made so many factual errors I have to question why anyone could ever consider Hitchens a genius. Well, beyond Hitchens himself.

He’s a vastly over-rated oaf, and I think his new found Jewish ancestry has made him both more self-pitying and arrogant. And, of course, it enabled him to find his inner neo-con.

“How dare the Clinton Administration talk about sexual deviance! It’s officials could have had their own float in the Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Parade.” -Ron Paul, 1993

…Not to mention that he regards Ronald Regan as his political role model (and ignoring the racist remakes he once made in his newsletter — that is, if you accept his unconvincing and self-serving denials). And that only skims the surface of Paul’s right-wing buffoonery.

Given the choice, I’d pick George over Ron ANY day.

“Ron Paul, In His Own Words”:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/15/124912/740

About George Galloway: I did not see him on the above mentioned debate but I did watch him on the BBC programme Hardtalk. He did very well. He has been consistent and does strike me as being direct and honest.In contrast, watch the Clintons do the snake dance every time they are cornered about sticky issues like Iraq, Al qaeda and Iran. Bill does it with hooded eyes and Hillary more amateurishly.

Galloway was the one to draw attention to the wrongs of the Falkland War and the sinking of the Belgrano in 1982. He opposed the Iraq War from the begining, made monkeys of the American senators who tried to pin rubbish claims on his integrity and stood up against that British poodle Blair.

Stephen Sackur (BBC) asked him if he was a patriot and his answer was something very close to what I believe is the right position for everyone. I cannot quote verbatim but this was the gist of what he said. “It is an accident of birth that made me a citizen of this country. There are some things of this country of which I am very proud but much that makes me ashamed”. I would say the same thing about my own country , India. I am more concerned that people everywhere be treated with dignity and equally, than that my country wins at wars and cricket matches.

I don’t see how someone could admire someone who has stated that he will destroy those who don’t worship him. Oh, I forgot that GW Bush still has a 29% approval rating.