Ron Paul a Libertarian?

Hardly.

Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines.
He voted against Gay Marriage.
He voted against Gay Civil Unions
Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad
He is opposed to Abortion/Women's Right's
Voted on Gay Adopton
Voted Yes to ban Affirmative Action
Voted YES on building a fence along the Mexican border.
Voted NO on increasing minimum wage to $7.25
Member of the Republican Liberty Caucus.

What happened to one's personal freedom and Liberty and one's enaliable right Mr. Paul?

Ron Paul is the Sanjaya of Republican Candidates before he is ever a Libertarian.

Typo - He voted to Ban Gay Adoption.

Yup he is a Libertarian on issues you have not covered and his interpretation of the ones you have covered are leaning Libertarian. He is a goofball with very little support except on the blogs on the Internet, a good CHEAP way to campaign when you can't raise funds because you have no real support. His minions have made pests of themselves to the point that some who might have been interested in him are turned off by the pestering.

He's a Libert-Aryan.

WHAT ARE YOU ASKING?

Thanks. You have informed us well. I believe in what he believes in.

He's a minarchist (CCC cops corps and court) - that's totally different from anarchism - but - libertarians (anarcho-capitalists) do like minarchists.

Some of those points are still Libertarian. Opposing federal funding of medical care and forieng aid, for instance, or doing away with the institutionalized discrimination of Affirmative Action.

But, he's a fringe Republican.

He is the closest thing to a LIbertarian we've got. Libertarians believe in VERY limited government and little (if any) government intervention in people private lives.
Now your issues:
1-He voted NO to expand GOVERNMENT FUNDED research.
2&3-He voted against gay marriage and civil unions because they are states rights issues, per the Constitution.
4-Per the Libertarian Party website - Foreign aid is little more than welfare for nations
5-The Libertarian Party has no official stance on abortion so it is a moot point
6-The "gay adoption" bill had $500 million in pork attached
7-Libertarians believe in a free-market economy.
8-Libertarians condemn the xenophobic immigrant bashing that would build a wall around the United States. Paul differs from them on this one point.
9-Per the Libertarian Party website - Minimum wage is ineffective in principle and works against the economy.

edit: I don't believe he has a "staunch pro-life record". He voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. He voted NO on making it a federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. Libertarians, oppose federal funding of abortion under any circumstances.

On same-sex marriage, he voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage (H.J.RES.106). This leaves it as a States Rights issue. The bill where he voted for banning gay adoption (in DC only) was HR 2587, and the gay adoption issue was only a small part of a much larger bill - the District of Columbia Appropriations Act for 2000. Federal funding for gay adoption was already banned in DC ((D.C. Law 9-114; D.C. Code, sec. 36-1401 et seq.). This law applies to unmarried, cohabiting couples (whether homosexual, heterosexual, or lesbian).

The Ron Paul in the 1988 presidential election, on the surface, seems like a different Ron Paul than the one in today's election. Though his party affiliaton says Republican, however, he's more or less the same Libertarian he's always been. Some of his policies, such his desire to collapse half of the government agencies, are extremely Libertarian. Think about it. A Libertarian running as governor of Texas (an overwhelmingly conservative state) is like Mike Tyson running for president of the Screen Actor's Guild, or something. It's because he ran as a Republican that he won the election for governor. Now he's trying to the same for the presidential election. He would never get any publicity running as a thrid-party no-name. He's using the notoriety of the Republican Party to get some visibility by means of the televised debates and fundraisers. When's the last time a Libertarian candidate was featured in a televised debate? Ron Paul is smart. He's using the Republican Party as a stepping stone to the White House, regardless of which policies he is "supposed" to stand for.

Ron Pole is a porn star. Your question is in the wrong place. Bad Meth?

Ron Paul ran as a Libertarian in 1988 for pres.

You are right Ron Paul is not a Libertarian, by his own account. He is more accurately a Constitutionalist and there are some differences. If you check his voting record it is always in line with the Constitution, which supports a small central government, not a government involved in every living matter.

John is right and you are uninformed regarding freedom, personal liberty, and inalienable rights and what role the government has in dispensing them. It is not your fault though, it is the poor job of the overly bureacratic Department of Education that has let you down (a department Ron Paul would like to make drastic cuts in.)

If you truly believe in a more Libertarian platform, you would vote for Ron Paul. Ron Paul's ideology in adhering to the Constitution provides for more state and county control over such matters. Instead our current government declares most issues on a national level.

What authority are you? I am going to assume that you are new to politics. I have a degree in political science so I will show you the way. "Libertarianism is a political philosophy maintaining that all persons are the absolute owners of their own lives, and should be free to do whatever they wish with their persons or property, provided they allow others the same liberty and avoid abusing their liberty." "In the 1988 presidential election, despite no previous affiliation with the Libertarian Party, Paul won the nomination of the United States Libertarian Party for the U.S. Presidency. Appearing on the ballot in 46 states and the District of Columbia." "During his time as Libertarian candidate, Paul gained supporters nationwide who agreed with him on many of his positions鈥攐n gun rights, fiscal conservatism, home-schoolers, right-to-lifers, and others who thought the federal government was heading in the wrong direction. These supporters formed a nationwide support base that encouraged him to return to office and supported him financially."

So in summary, Ron Paul is a Libertarian. Ron Paul has consistenly voted Libertarian as you have shown. I won't go through all of them but I will take the first one. "Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines."
Is that more government or less government? The key is that this bill would have given the goverment money to expand research of stem cells. That is more government and Libertartians are against more government so that goes in the plus column of Ron Paul being a Libertarian.

There are pro-life liberatarians, the Libertarian Party hasn't branded itself as a Pro-choice party. So the issue is still divided like gay marriage. They might be okay with gay relations but not with marriage. The libertarian party is against affirmative action and against an increase in the minimun wage. In what way is he not a Libertarian? His positions are more than 90% aligned with the Libertarian party. He ran as a Libertarian in 1988! Libertarians like myself support him! He has never voted to raise taxes and is very anti-gun control. Libertarians are against illegal immigration and support the fence.

Ron Paul votes against things that are not explicitly authorized by the Constitution. The Constitution grants government a very narrow focus, in part, because it's anti-freedom to force some people to pay for things with their taxes that they oppose.

Stem cells, gay marriage and unions, family planning abortion, adoption, drugs, education, wage levels and profit levels are not mentioned in the Constitution. He has never voted against your right to spend your own money on these things. He just votes against spending taxpayer money on these things. As for fences, immigration and national defense are authorized in the Constitution. As for abortion, I'm not certain but I think his interpretation of the Constitution says that a fetus has basic rights.

The dominant principle here is that government should be kept very small so that it doesn't intrude into the lives of citizens. There is a tendency for bureaucrats in government, and for the majority in a democracy, to both intrude into one's private affairs.