I stand corrected, then. If Thorsen was not permitted to attend a rally in uniform, even when not active, then perhaps there is reason to penalize him.

That still does not, however, imply that Ron planned to get him into trouble. Nor does it suggest that Ron intentionally encouraged him to break the rules or that he had even realized that rules were being broken in the first place. To make such an assumption is still more of a personal theory than anything.

Thorsen had already made the personal choice to come out on CNN in uniform (before Ron even met him) to speak in support of Ron. Asking why Ron wasn't aware that the soldier was breaking any rules is no different than asking CNN why they weren't also aware. The most simple and most honest answer would probably be that the thought didn't cross their minds or they didn't realize there was anything wrong with it. He wasn't active at the time, so perhaps Ron's campaign didn't realize that the DoD still applied to him.

You also never explained why it was acceptable for a uniformed soldier to show up at Romney's campaign rallies in 2007? How is that any different and should Romney also be scrutinized for allowing a soldier who was willfully disobeying the DoD to attend?

As Major Wallace mentioned, the military court martials themselves are still unclear whether Thorsen's "non-active" statis will affect the outcome of his case.

Out of curiosity...why would Ron pay someone to come out in support of him? He already has the biggest turnouts at his rallies than all other candidates. I doubt the campaign would feel compelled to hire someone to stand with him at photo-ops, when the former head of the CIA's Osama bin laden unit, Santorum's own nephew and several other promenent figures have already come out in support of him.

Furthermore, I doubt Ron is lacking African American supporters to stand with him. He has been supported by many different African based websites and many black individuals, including "Thy Black Man", "JorYan and Bros." (who have created a video called "Africa for Ron Paul") and more.

In fact, the Ron Paul PAC even found James Williams, a black man who had married a white woman, who was happy to explain in the ad, "the Compassion of Dr. Ron Paul", how Ron helped him and his wife medically in their time of need, when everyone else at the hospital ignored them due to racial prejudice. Ron also never billed him for any of the medical attention they recieved.

So, of course he has people who can stand with him. Many of these people are attending the rallies and do support him without needing to be paid.

On another note, as I said before, you're making very bold assumptions about my personal stance on Ron Paul without any conclusive evidence. It is increadibly pathetic that you are unable to make a point without resorting to such juvenile personal attacks, which says far more about your abilities to cope with an opposing POV than anything.

It isn't about not being able to take the heat, as you so ignorantly assume. You must be confusing arguing a point with being emotionally defensive. They're not one and the same. I have no emotional attachment to this topic. I'm simply stating my points, while being continuously perplexed (albeit amused) at your defensiveness whenever someone makes a point that is even remotely positive about Ron. Especially since you seem to be so perturbed by my disagreement with your POV that it compels you to resort to personal insults. Whatever makes you feel better, I guess.

Frankly, though, I thought that I had signed up for a service called "IntenseDebate", but thus far my experience has neither been intense nor a debate by any definition of the word. It also does not hurt to mention that you're the only one who is refering to Ron Paul as a "saint". Such childish, spiteful comments.

Please, explain to me why I should take you seriously when you're so emotionally defensive that you can not have a proper debate without making broad, ignorant attacks against me, a person who you have never met nor know nothing about?

Puh-leese! I seem to remember back when George Bush and Dick Cheney were making speeches about the dangers of Islam, facism, North Korea, and Iran there were U.S. troops in uniform attending then. I also don't hear anyone getting upset about Romney saluting a soldier who had attended one of his presidential campaign speeches while in uniform in 2007.

Of course, everyone seems to have an issue about it now. Hmmm...wonder why?

Ron's intention was to offer the soldier, who had been cut off by CNN, a chance to finish what he wanted to say. Did having a soldier come out and support him help his campaign? Of course! But if you honestly think Ron's intention was to get the guy in trouble and cause conflict for his own gain, then you're either naive or are simply trying to grasp at straws to find something about Ron Paul that further justifies your dislike for him.

Furthermore, that DoD Directive relates specifically to active soldiers. Army Reserve spokeswoman Major Angel Wallace already came out and explained to the "Globe and Mail" that Thorsen was not on active duty at the time of the rally and that was probably why he didn't think there was any issue in it. That fact alone is very important when deciding if he broke any rules in the first place!

The fact that you are unaware of all this makes it quite obvious that you're either blissfully ignorant or simply would rather just use this incident as an excuse to justify an attack towards a candidate you don't personally like.

It is for these very reasons that I don't have to keep up with any of you. I'm already ahead of you on the facts.

I am also very open to criticism of Ron Paul (who is not a saint by any means). There are plenty of things that I disagree with him on. What simpleton tries to connect a comment defending Ron from an ad hominem attack that is unjustified to revereing him as a saint? Where the Hell did you come up with that connection? If you really gave a crap about the truth of any given situation, then you'd be looking at things with an impartial outlook. But you can not sit on your ass behind a computer screen, throw bias allegations and rediculous assumptions at me, then expect me to take your POV seriously.

If mocking those who say anything even remotely supportive of Ron Paul is your idea of an argument, then you've a long way to go in the field of debate and really have no place in discussing politics when you'd oppose Ron Paul just as blindly as those people that you claim worship him! Not everyone who supports him does so blindly! I, for one, support him knowing that there are some flaws. He's human, for God's sake!

Go check your facts, learn some more and come back when you have a substantial argument that doesn't involve petty mudslinging. It has nothing to do with supporting or opposing a candidate. It has to do with putting personal emotions on the subject aside to see what the facts point to, even if the truth is contrary to your gut reaction.

Actually, no. I call them like I see them. If people have legitamite arguments against Ron Paul, then I'll accept them. I don't worship the guy, nor do I agree with all of his stances. But how rediculously petty is it to resort to an ad hominem attack on his supporters when someone is either too lazy or too uninformned to make an argument against Ron on things that actually matter!

If it is, then it'd be refreshing to hear people actually debate them instead of resorting to petty mud-slinging. As it were, this article is in no way relavent to his positions or his actions.

Or you simply don't have an explanation for why he's wrong. Don't bother commenting if you're not willing to take the time to back up your allegations.

People need to grow up. It’s disappointing how naïve and easily distracted many seem to be!

One individual does not reflect upon the whole! A Ron Paul supporter with a criminal record does not reflect anything about Ron Paul’s candidacy as a whole! It only reflects upon the individual. If the point of all this was to publicly humiliate Thorsen for his past offenses, then this probably succeeded.

Yet, to use this in an attempt to attack the Ron Paul campaign is just an ad hominem attack and nothing more. An attempt to negate the truth of Ron's popularity by pointing out a negative characteristic of one of his supporters. Anyone trying to attack the validity of Ron Paul through the actions of one of his supporters is just ridiculous. What a feeble excuse based upon a logical fallacy.

Just imagine for a second what kind of people are supporting Newt or Romney or Santorum or Obama. What? Are all of THEIR supporters with clean records? Considering 1 in 4 Americans have criminal records these days? Unlikely.

It’s about Ron’s positions and actions! Not some soldier who came out in support of him. Stay focused, people!

Also, I'm sure that there are plenty of people just itching to hit the "thumb down" button on this comment simply because it points out the flaws in this joke of an article. Considering this website is called "Big Government" and has a history of Ron Paul hating, I'm not holding my breath for positive feedback any time soon.