I understand why the most extreme candidate would garner criticism. I'm asking specifically for what those criticisms are so I can understand exactly what people's specific objections are and if any of them can be broken.

From Paul's site:
"While a Flat Tax or a Fair Tax would each be a better alternative to the income tax system, Congressman Paul believes we would have to guarantee the 16th Amendment is repealed to avoid having both the income tax and one of these systems as an additional tax.

But there is a better way. Restraining federal spending by enforcing the Constitution’s strict limits on the federal government’s power would help result in a 0% income tax rate for Americans."

I think he wants to ultimately get rid of the income tax and not replace it with anything. It's not the federal government's only source of income (or even its largest). Obviously it can only be done with a drastic reduction in federal expenditures.

The farther you stray the more radical a shift is required to get back to home base. Calling it radical kind of puts a negative connotation on it and suggests it's silly.

"And I am no economist, but my understanding is that most of those things put more money in the hands of the rich and even further widen the very sizable wealth gap of the country"

We've been doing that more now than ever. Leveling the playing field and reducing inflation works to undue that. We've strongly widened the gap and huge spending plans like Obama has done and suggests more of make it even worse. If we stop spending massively and stop as much corruption as we can that helps the rich at the expense everyone else things will be better not worse.

"Oh, and getting rid of the Department of Education is frightening to me."

He wants to get rid of the US Department of Education, which wasn't even established until 1979. It's unconstitutional and doesn't seem to help us be better educated. It's just a huge large overbearing entity that dictates one plan of education for the whole country and forces all the states to play ball or have their education defunded. It's the system that gives you things like 'No Child Left Behind' which seems to distinctly leave children and schools that can't keep up behind. He wants to return school systems to the states and local level as much as possible so one misguided bureacracy isn't in control of all schools in the whole nation. He wants state and local communities to decide what education is right for them and to give people the ability to opt out if they think they're better off educating their kids themselves. I would think many can agree our current system is failing.

From his site: "Returning control of education to parents and teachers on the local level is the centerpiece of Ron Paul’s education agenda."

"Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

Seems like he's just pointing out the bias of the justice system as being laughably bad and against the black population.

"black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such."
If you saw a huge muscular man covered in tattoos and presenting himself in a fashion typical of a gangster you might be scared for your safety. Wouldn't you? He seems to be stating that in some places that person who fits that stereotype tends to be black and it isn't racism to be afraid. From what I've heard him say he simply points out how unfairly the racist card is used as if someone's fear is racism because they happen to be black in some cases.

"because one's skin color should be the deciding factor in determining whether to try a youth as an adult "
Without context can't really speak well to this one. My guess and of course some people will disagree is that he may be pointing again to the injustice of the justice system whereby someone is more likely to be tried as an adult if they're a minority in the area.

"In any case, I don't understand how a Paulbot doesn't realize that he is an extreme candidate."
I understand he's extreme. I just don't see 'extreme' as an inherently bad thing. Seems to be a tag used to marginalize him and his views. I'm sure Americans establishing this country and separating from England seemed pretty extreme to the people over in England. Sometimes extreme is what is good and needed. I want to know what you have against things specifically not just to be against them because they're 'out there'.

"And it is blatantly unconstitutional to conduct prayer in public schools, which he proposes."
I think the idea some people have as far as prayer goes has taken it too far in the 'separation of church and state' field. But that's a more complicated topic to address.

What's a Paulbot? Are you saying I'm failing the Turing test with these posts or something? Did I just spit out a bunch of canned talking points or something? Or are you suggesting the Ron Paul revolution is also the robot revolution and judgement day is upon us!?

Deregulated financial barons package risky debt into risk-obscuring derivative bundles and then make billions of profits from rising bubbles caused by overvaluation of the value of debt-laden holdings. Then the corporate entities that acted as the interface to the market for these wheelings and dealings collapse, bringing down minor shareholders with them. Many of there are only shareholders because fund managers have extended them out into high-risk markets. Those at the top skim off the cream while they can and then bail.

In some cases, the cost of the collapse of these bubbles is borne by the American taxpayer through subsidies to too-big-to-fail banks, all of us captive to the necessity of keeping the heartbeat of financial infrastructure beating lest all of industry come to a complete standstill. As people watch their savings shrivel up, their access to money becomes crippled in aggregate. When consumers stop consuming, the businesses they work for have to shed employees and scale down operations in order to remain in the black due to fall-offs in revenue. Large ticket, travel related, and luxury markets take especially hard hits. All of the people who find themselves in arrears on their expenses continue to contribute to the problem, as assets comprised in part of the decreasing value of the holding of their debts drop in value even further.

Large corporations also receive subsidies and tax breaks to try and encourage them to create jobs through their business investments. They turn around and create those jobs in impoverished 3rd world companies with lax financial regulation and weak protection for worker's rights, bringing in a tidy profit over what they could have made if they'd set up that factory somewhere in the US where the costs of doing business are higher. Products made or serviced by cheap slavish labor under deplorable conditions then get imported into the US, tarriff free, and then get sold at prices that undercut competing products made domestically, further weakening national and regional economies.

These are just some examples of the myriad problems which arrive hand-in-hand with free markets and deregulation. Many extremely bright people are constantly envisioning and implementing new ways to leverage such circumstances to increase their wealth and consolidate their power in politics under the cover of an infotainment media (Thanks, FOX) that is largely in bed with them, and that has been developed into an extremely effective machine for making the typically apathetic and uneducated voters bend over and like it. The people that have the power aren't using it to the benefit of us US citizens, and many of Ron Paul's stated policy goals would simply make it that much easier for these parasites to operate their dirty con.

It may be that Mr. Paul himself honestly believes that he could build a better society for us through his ideas, but they're still in many cases completely at cross-purposes with my idea of what society and government should be. Luckily for me and the many others who agree with me (or at least disagree with Ron Paul,) the man is almost completely unelectable. If I ever have to eat my words on that account, I'll be doing it with a real sense of concern for what the future will hold...

It's all one part of the **hole**. Only when there is an entire overhaul of the system shall we see any longevity in gain for the majority. Our entire outlook and belief is contorted by mainstream media and the hierarchical structures of the prevailing institutions we are a product of. We may garner short term relief for the masses, though only for the short term. We are molded, albeit unconsciously, by what we experience. Until our focus changes from one of adhering to the perceived norm, to one of exploring and attempting to understand this consciousness we are privy to, any form of government shall end up failing us in the end. The system is set up to favor the bold and ruthless. Our Idols are figures of the mediums we are subjected to, not the Doctorates, Professors and philanthropists that act to create a better world. Until this capitalist rampage is morally governed, it will make no difference who is in charge. The trajectory shall be maintained.