People against Ron Paul:
- Want something for free
- Think that life is fair (refer to bullet #1: getting things for free makes life more "fair")
- Think that it's ethical to obligate others to work for someone else (refer to bullet #2: life is fair, even if you have to extort/rob people to make it fair)
- Don't understand basic math (cannot/refuse to understand basic economics or monetary policy)
- Can't read their native language (the constitution is written in English)
- Don't understand natural rights and/or unalienable rights (refer to bullet #5)
- Don't understand the first amendment
- Don't understand property rights
- Think statutes are lawful even if they violate an amendment (cannot/refuse to acknowledge that laws aren't just, if they break an amendment)
- Manipulate the adherence to the constitution, into a form of radicalism
- Trolls (those that know he makes sense, but just don't want to acknowledge it, thus they spew hatred towards those with a logical thought process - ignorance causes this)
Now that about sums it up. Anyone who is against Ron Paul likely falls under at least one, of the above categories, in regards to their specific disagreement(s). If one falls under one of the above categories, it's not so much a result of one's disagreement, rather it's a result of ignorance that causes the disagreement to begin with. It's pretty simple.
Following a written law (constitution) doesn't leave room for ignorance, and that is all Ron Paul wants to do. The other candidates want to do everything in their power to test written law, which is ignorant. That's pretty simple too.
I don't really think I fit into any of your categories, nor do I think you understand what mathematics/logic is. Though Econ relies on "math" (if you've taken discrete mathematics or any higher course, specifically number and game theory, it's pretty easy to understand that stating Econ=Math is a bunch of bullshit), it's not really a math. Human's patterns can be estimated by algorithms, which in turn dictate some basic "rules" in Econ. However, if you really want to delve into this field you ought to take a programming/cog sci/mathematics graduate level class, not an econ class.
It annoys me how pompous most Ron Paul fans are. They criticize liberals by saying they're pseudo intellectuals, but the phrase: "Point one finger at me, you're pointing four at yourself" really applies here. I think everyone can agree that politicians are corrupt. I don't think Ron Paul is the answer. I've been a Nader (who, by the way, commends Ron Paul on his honesty and thinks he brings up some good issues) fan my entire voting career, and if I could, I would have voted for Frank Zappa in '92. More often than not, rage and calling everyone a dipshit who doesn't agree with you will not motivate people to agree with your political opinion. In fact it will motivate them to find reasons to call you a dipshit, which you gave plenty.
I've already stated my reason for disliking Ron Paul, and again, I do not think it follows your anti paul guidelines. Understand that peoples' opinions differ, and instead of offering groups and guidelines and stating them in a "matter of fact" attitude; offer them some issues that you would like to discuss and debate. What's the point in making 20k+ Ron Paul threads if the same message reiterates throughout all of them: "Ron Paul is the best, if you don't think so you're dumb, I'm smarter than you, you're a dumbass." I think I'm actually giving people too much credit by using "you're" correctly, but we'll ignore that. In short, don't present people with something as condescending as your post AND expect them to take you seriously.