More evidence that Ron Paul is a neo-con

[Lucky... 0]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnews/20071112/ts_usnews/qalibertariancandidateronpaul&printer=1;_ylt=AoYwW8lHeUMNyfa9xkNR6yWSl7MF

"Do you feel like a Republican?
I think I feel more like a Republican than they should. They're not conservatives, they're neoconservatives, and neoconservatives are big-government people. Why they get called conservatives or Republicans is beyond me. Some people feel loyal to the party, and people hate to break with this loyalty. But when I talk to people and they say, "You can be against the war and still be conservative?" I say, "Certainly." The conservative position is to not start wars and to obey the Constitution. Ronald Reagan not too long ago ran against the Department of Education and the Department of Energy, and he did quite well, and there's this whole idea that all of a sudden that I'm strange to the Republican Party? . . ."

Hello asswipe, don't denounce out of control spending and praise Reagan in the same paragraph. Maybe he didn't get the memo, but Reagan trippled the debt in 8 years.

"Where should decisions about legalizing abortion lie?
If you don't protect life, you can't protect liberty. And we now are at a stage where we allow the national government through the Supreme Court to permit the killing of an unborn baby anytime before birth. How do you protect somebody's right to go out and drink alcohol and smoke marijuana if you can't even protect life? As a physician, it's a legal entity. I could be sued if I hurt a fetus. I've been strongly pro-life, but I don't support nationalization of any of these problems. I voted against the marriage amendment. I want this to be held under our traditional form of republican government and let the states deal with it. . . ."

Like a good neo-con, fuck the worries of gov control to trade them for the moral vote as any sell-out would do. BTW, I could use that same argument to support universal healthcare. See, how can we support liberty if the people are ill? And the clincher:

"Do you need to court conservative evangelicals?
I think so. I have to talk about the Christian just-war theory. We're not supposed to start wars. I talk about civil liberties, and they say, "That lets people do bad things." I say, "Yes, but these are the same liberties that allow you to pray in school, that allow you to have your home-schoolers, to have your own churches."

So he back-doors rubbing elbows with the right moralists to avdocate saving money on schools? Yea, and it's not for the moral vote - what a typical fucking lying politician sucking for votes, which is no problem, just that his drones (followers) claim he's not like that. WHATEVER

[Lefty 0]

Quote

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnews/20071112/ts_usnews/qalibertariancandidateronpaul&printer=1;_ylt=AoYwW8lHeUMNyfa9xkNR6yWSl7MF

"Do you feel like a Republican?
I think I feel more like a Republican than they should. They're not conservatives, they're neoconservatives, and neoconservatives are big-government people. Why they get called conservatives or Republicans is beyond me. Some people feel loyal to the party, and people hate to break with this loyalty. But when I talk to people and they say, "You can be against the war and still be conservative?" I say, "Certainly." The conservative position is to not start wars and to obey the Constitution. Ronald Reagan not too long ago ran against the Department of Education and the Department of Energy, and he did quite well, and there's this whole idea that all of a sudden that I'm strange to the Republican Party? . . ."

Hello asswipe, don't denounce out of control spending and praise Reagan in the same paragraph. Maybe he didn't get the memo, but Reagan trippled the debt in 8 years.

"Where should decisions about legalizing abortion lie?
If you don't protect life, you can't protect liberty. And we now are at a stage where we allow the national government through the Supreme Court to permit the killing of an unborn baby anytime before birth. How do you protect somebody's right to go out and drink alcohol and smoke marijuana if you can't even protect life? As a physician, it's a legal entity. I could be sued if I hurt a fetus. I've been strongly pro-life, but I don't support nationalization of any of these problems. I voted against the marriage amendment. I want this to be held under our traditional form of republican government and let the states deal with it. . . ."

Like a good neo-con, fuck the worries of gov control to trade them for the moral vote as any sell-out would do. BTW, I could use that same argument to support universal healthcare. See, how can we support liberty if the people are ill? And the clincher:

"Do you need to court conservative evangelicals?
I think so. I have to talk about the Christian just-war theory. We're not supposed to start wars. I talk about civil liberties, and they say, "That lets people do bad things." I say, "Yes, but these are the same liberties that allow you to pray in school, that allow you to have your home-schoolers, to have your own churches."

So he back-doors rubbing elbows with the right moralists to avdocate saving money on schools? Yea, and it's not for the moral vote - what a typical fucking lying politician sucking for votes, which is no problem, just that his drones (followers) claim he's not like that. WHATEVER

In my years on this board, I don't think I've seen so much misinterpretation gathered in one post. Did you apply any thought at all to what he said?

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

[masterblaster72 0]

Quote

But when I talk to people and they say, "You can be against the war and still be conservative?" I say, "Certainly." The conservative position is to not start wars and to obey the Constitution.

Wow! That's some pretty damning evidence there. I'm convinced.



PS I clicked on that link. USNews/Yahoo! should immediately eat shit and correct the (deliberate?) misnomer in the header of that interview "Libertarian Candidate Ron Paul." He's a Republican candidate for f.cks sake...

Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up.

[Lucky... 0]

Why is it the conservatives describe their feelings without explaining them? You can't refute the observations I made, can you? OK, step 1, take each assertion I made and explain how I misinterpreted RP's assertion.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

But when I talk to people and they say, "You can be against the war and still be conservative?" I say, "Certainly." The conservative position is to not start wars and to obey the Constitution.

Wow! That's some pretty damning evidence there. I'm convinced.



PS I clicked on that link. USNews/Yahoo! should immediately eat shit and correct the (deliberate?) misnomer in the header of that interview "Libertarian Candidate Ron Paul." He's a Republican candidate for f.cks sake...

Not gonna touch the evangelical / moralist sucking-up, are you? Not gonna do it, wouldn't be prudent. See, he's made the assertions that he's different, he's not a neo-con, yet then he runs as a Repub and falls back into the typical neo-con BS...... the burden has shifted upon him or his cult to now explain why he is courting the religious vote in contrast with his claimed agenda. Oh, what agenda? THE AGENDA WHERE HE'S SUPPOSED TO STAY OUT OF PEOPLE'S LIVES AND CHOICES, then he backdoors some shit about not voting for the homophobe amendment as if it's supposed to wash out the pandering for the religious zealot vote. Address that shit or simply put it in your pipe and smoke it .

[Lefty 0]

Quote

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnews/20071112/ts_usnews/qalibertariancandidateronpaul&printer=1;_ylt=AoYwW8lHeUMNyfa9xkNR6yWSl7MF

"Do you feel like a Republican?
I think I feel more like a Republican than they should. They're not conservatives, they're neoconservatives, and neoconservatives are big-government people. Why they get called conservatives or Republicans is beyond me. Some people feel loyal to the party, and people hate to break with this loyalty. But when I talk to people and they say, "You can be against the war and still be conservative?" I say, "Certainly." The conservative position is to not start wars and to obey the Constitution. Ronald Reagan not too long ago ran against the Department of Education and the Department of Energy, and he did quite well, and there's this whole idea that all of a sudden that I'm strange to the Republican Party? . . ."

Hello asswipe, don't denounce out of control spending and praise Reagan in the same paragraph. Maybe he didn't get the memo, but Reagan trippled the debt in 8 years.

"Where should decisions about legalizing abortion lie?
If you don't protect life, you can't protect liberty. And we now are at a stage where we allow the national government through the Supreme Court to permit the killing of an unborn baby anytime before birth. How do you protect somebody's right to go out and drink alcohol and smoke marijuana if you can't even protect life? As a physician, it's a legal entity. I could be sued if I hurt a fetus. I've been strongly pro-life, but I don't support nationalization of any of these problems. I voted against the marriage amendment. I want this to be held under our traditional form of republican government and let the states deal with it. . . ."

Like a good neo-con, fuck the worries of gov control to trade them for the moral vote as any sell-out would do. BTW, I could use that same argument to support universal healthcare. See, how can we support liberty if the people are ill? And the clincher:

"Do you need to court conservative evangelicals?
I think so. I have to talk about the Christian just-war theory. We're not supposed to start wars. I talk about civil liberties, and they say, "That lets people do bad things." I say, "Yes, but these are the same liberties that allow you to pray in school, that allow you to have your home-schoolers, to have your own churches."

So he back-doors rubbing elbows with the right moralists to avdocate saving money on schools? Yea, and it's not for the moral vote - what a typical fucking lying politician sucking for votes, which is no problem, just that his drones (followers) claim he's not like that. WHATEVER

Comment 1: It's true Reagan did increase the debt quite a bit. However, there was a war on...a war which we won, thanks to our spending.

Comment 2: He wants to hand over the abortion debate to the states. Do you really think that's going to make the "moral vote" very happy?

Comment 3: Should he pretend like the Christian right does not exist? Here is where I'm convinced that you applied no logical thought to what you read. He is trying to convince the religious right that the same civil liberties they sometimes oppose are the same civil liberties that allow them to practice their religion and voice their opinions. To put it another way, he's trying to get them to look at civil liberties in a different light; a light in which they may have to tolerate things they don't like, but with the understanding that they will not be persecuted for their beliefs either.

Edited for clarity.

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

[masterblaster72 0]

Quote

Not gonna touch the evangelical / moralist sucking-up, are you? Not gonna do it, wouldn't be prudent.... the burden has shifted upon him or his cult to now explain why he is courting the religious vote in contrast with his claimed agenda. Oh, what agenda? THE AGENDA WHERE HE'S SUPPOSED TO STAY OUT OF PEOPLE'S LIVES AND CHOICES, then he backdoors some shit about not voting for the homophobe amendment as if it's supposed to wash out the pandering for the religious zealot vote.

Ron Paul is about bringing people together, not dividing. Look at some other supporters' posts and you'll see that their views are *very* different than mine on many issues.

To address your point about evangelicals, I'll defer to what Ron Paul said in response to one of the questions he was asked in the interview:

Quote

Can you characterize a typical Ron Paul supporter?
No. The characteristic is they're not typical, and we're proud of it. We talk about it all the time--freedom brings diversity. It brings people together.

...or we can vote for Rudy/another republican (who is a lot like Bush, who will leave the country divided) or Hillary or another democrat (who is a typical democrat, who will also leave the country divided).

Quote

Address that shit or simply put it in your pipe and smoke it .

Come on now, I'm sure you're not a stupid person, but that comment really is stupid.

Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Well I must say I'm very impressed. He makes nice to the so-cons while explaining why he wont support the amendment of hate, why he supports civil rights, why he has no intention in getting into the abortion quagmire, why he believes in peace. I don't get a vote but I think I know who I'm hoping for. Ever heard of the Reagan Democrats? I think if he ever got past the GOP nominating process you would see a lot of Paul Democrats.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

But when I talk to people and they say, "You can be against the war and still be conservative?" I say, "Certainly." The conservative position is to not start wars and to obey the Constitution.

Wow! That's some pretty damning evidence there. I'm convinced.



PS I clicked on that link. USNews/Yahoo! should immediately eat shit and correct the (deliberate?) misnomer in the header of that interview "Libertarian Candidate Ron Paul." He's a Republican candidate for f.cks sake...

I guess the joke's on you, you are the last guy thinking there is a difference. For fuck's safe, how many times does a candidate/politican have to cross back and forth between Repub/Libertar before everyon figures it out?

[Lucky... 0]

>>>>>>>>>Comment 1: It's true Reagan did increase the debt quite a bit. However, there was a war on...a war which we won, thanks to our spending.

A war, which war, the war on Communism or the war on drugs which he proliferated via the CIA and had fall guy Ollie forget about all the details? Get it, the wa on drugs was/is BS. As for the war on Communism, the Ruskies were great in WWII, we helped them beat the Germans and they were gonna march into Japan and kick their asses too until we decided to do the unthinkable; kill 200-300k mostly women and children.

Other tna the bay of pigs, the Ruskies were not a threat. Really, it was a checkmate but Reagan decide dto use it as a reason to hand over all the US money, current and future to the US corps. Can't you see that the USSR was a joke? Their monetary system has always been a joke. Explain to me why Reagan gets the credit for beating the Russians when:

1) We have had a cold war biuldup since post WWII

2) The wall fell 4 months after Reagan left office

3) The wall fell due to Communism being an unfeasable economic system, just as US Capitalism is falling.

Howis it the second to last guy getting all the credit for a 45-year cold war? I mean LBJ blew plenty of cash on BS war machinery too, why not gove him credit? What was the USSR such a threat with? WHat were they planning to do? There was no was on, we just got out of one; VN. Can't you see these nutjob Repubs are always fighting a war, even if they have to create one?

>>>>>>>>>>Comment 2: He wants to hand over the abortion debate to the states. Do you really think that's going to make the "moral vote" very happy?

He opposes the Libertarian fundamental of leaving the people's choice alone by being pro-life, then tries to back out by saying he could leave it to the states. But we know if federal leg comes down which way he would go. Furthermore, to court the moral vote with that tidbit is leaning away from the Libertarian foundation, they don;t want interference from activist groups.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>Comment 3: Should he pretend like the Christian right does not exist? Here is where I'm convinced that you applied no logical thought to what you read. He is trying to convince the religious right that the same civil liberties they sometimes oppose are the same civil liberties that allow them to practice their religion and voice their opinions. To put it another way, he's trying to get them to look at civil liberties in a different light; a light in which they may have to tolerate things they don't like, but with the understanding that they will not be persecuted for their beliefs either.

Hardly, the Libertarian mandate is say leave alone people's decisions to themselves. He appeasing a special interest group, plain and simple.

[Lucky... 0]

>>>>>>>>>Ron Paul is about bringing people together, not dividing. Look at some other supporters' posts and you'll see that their views are *very* different than mine on many issues.

To address your point about evangelicals, I'll defer to what Ron Paul said in response to one of the questions he was asked in the interview:




That's rhetotic, substance is that he's pro-life. We can dance around all day with BS about various general philosophies, but when we are cornerd and have to shit, that's what you get, a candidate who is pandering to the moral righties. It is exemplified here with the quote you posted:

Can you characterize a typical Ron Paul supporter?
No. The characteristic is they're not typical, and we're proud of it. We talk about it all the time--freedom brings diversity. It brings people together.

This reads, "bla-bla-bla" What reads as substance is when someone says, 'I'm for universal care, I'm for choice, I'm for pro-life, I'm for the war,etc..' I'm sure you'll agree. I can say I'm for all people having health insurance, but until I talk about personal repsonsibility or universal care do I really plant myself in one corner. RP pinned himself down by saying he's pro-life, that was substance, that snippet was rhetoric and cheerleader dribble.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>...or we can vote for Rudy/another republican (who is a lot like Bush, who will leave the country divided) or Hillary or another democrat (who is a typical democrat, who will also leave the country divided).

When Clinton was pres, the county was somewhat divided, not like now, but it was progressively moving fwd, now it's grossly divided and regressive. Point is, even if it's divided, who cares? Was teh country divided during the Civil War? Sure and those were times when we gain civil rights. Was teh country divided in the 50's / 60's when blacks got rights? Of course, so who gives a shit about divided, let's work toward progressive.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>Come on now, I'm sure you're not a stupid person, but that comment really is stupid.

Get over yourself and your veiled PA.

[Lefty 0]

I was referring to the Cold War. I agree the drug war is BS, and I don't need you to remind me. So as not to hijack the thread, I'll let you go refresh your history regarding WWII, the atomic bomb, and the Cold War.

A person can have political beliefs and personal beliefs which differ. For instance, I'm politically pro-choice, but I'd never forgive myself if I let my child be aborted, so personally I'm pro-life (the mother's life, of course, being a top priority). Again, as Paul said, he wants to leave it up to the states. It is a perfectly libertarian thing to do.

Where in Paul's answer about the Christian right does he deny "leave alone people's decisions to themselves" as you so eloquently put it? Personal choice was neither the topic of the question nor the topic of his reply. Merely, he wants the religious right to come to grips with the fact that they can't tell people what to do all the time. He wants compromise and cooperation.

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Well I must say I'm very impressed. He makes nice to the so-cons while explaining why he wont support the amendment of hate, why he supports civil rights, why he has no intention in getting into the abortion quagmire, why he believes in peace. I don't get a vote but I think I know who I'm hoping for. Ever heard of the Reagan Democrats? I think if he ever got past the GOP nominating process you would see a lot of Paul Democrats.

No, he very carefully sides with the moralists, who knows what he would do if elected, maybe he's just jerking them. SOme of his principles are great, but like all Libertarians I've spoken with / read about, they're pathetic when it comes to questions of what to do with elderly and disabled. They say, "LEAVE IT TO CHARITY." This is the main reason why I leave every nutjob Libertarian with the feeling that they are clueless. Can they even put together a format of what the expenditures are now and what they will be and how the needy will be taken care of. They just skim over it and say teh church will take care of it. Any halfass nitwit can take the biggest problem of a system, disregard it and have all the answers. This is why the pathetic bastards might get 10% of the Repub primary vote.

BTW, I love your culminating the Reagan Dems..... it's so very Libertarianesque of you

[Lefty 0]

Quote

SOme of his principles are great, but like all Libertarians I've spoken with / read about, they're pathetic when it comes to questions of what to do with elderly and disabled. They say, "LEAVE IT TO CHARITY." This is the main reason why I leave every nutjob Libertarian with the feeling that they are clueless. Can they even put together a format of what the expenditures are now and what they will be and how the needy will be taken care of. They just skim over it and say teh church will take care of it.

The church will take care of it. The government taking care of it means money was forcibly taken from one person and given to another. Charity is voluntary. Strangely, I am not left feeling clueless in your presence.

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

[Lucky... 0]

>>>>>>>>>>>I was referring to the Cold War. I agree the drug war is BS, and I don't need you to remind me. So as not to hijack the thread, I'll let you go refresh your history regarding WWII, the atomic bomb, and the Cold War.


That's what I wrote about, the cold war. Do I need to go back and refresh your memory? I threw in the war on drugs as yet another example of the right win creation of wars. I'm sure I know more than you about WWII, I've been to Tinian, the loading place of LB / FM. Againb, go back and read, I was talking about how the cold war was BS from the start, it was an ideological war played out in the form of the Cold War.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>A person can have political beliefs and personal beliefs which differ. For instance, I'm politically pro-choice, but I'd never forgive myself if I let my child be aborted, so personally I'm pro-life (the mother's life, of course, being a top priority). Again, as Paul said, he wants to leave it up to the states. It is a perfectly libertarian thing to do.


As he leans to pro-life. If a bill comes before him, I thnk we knwo what to expect. If he were a true Libertarian he would have said states rights/decision.....PERIOD.

>>>>>>>>>>>Where in Paul's answer about the Christian right does he deny "leave alone people's decisions to themselves" as you so eloquently put it? Personal choice was neither the topic of the question nor the topic of his reply. Merely, he wants the religious right to come to grips with the fact that they can't tell people what to do all the time. He wants compromise and cooperation.


Where in there did you fail to read that he IS courting the evangelical right?

[Lefty 0]

Quote

>>>>>>>>>>>I was referring to the Cold War. I agree the drug war is BS, and I don't need you to remind me. So as not to hijack the thread, I'll let you go refresh your history regarding WWII, the atomic bomb, and the Cold War.


That's what I wrote about, the cold war. Do I need to go back and refresh your memory? I threw in the war on drugs as yet another example of the right win creation of wars. I'm sure I know more than you about WWII, I've been to Tinian, the loading place of LB / FM. Againb, go back and read, I was talking about how the cold war was BS from the start, it was an ideological war played out in the form of the Cold War.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>A person can have political beliefs and personal beliefs which differ. For instance, I'm politically pro-choice, but I'd never forgive myself if I let my child be aborted, so personally I'm pro-life (the mother's life, of course, being a top priority). Again, as Paul said, he wants to leave it up to the states. It is a perfectly libertarian thing to do.


As he leans to pro-life. If a bill comes before him, I thnk we knwo what to expect. If he were a true Libertarian he would have said states rights/decision.....PERIOD.

>>>>>>>>>>>Where in Paul's answer about the Christian right does he deny "leave alone people's decisions to themselves" as you so eloquently put it? Personal choice was neither the topic of the question nor the topic of his reply. Merely, he wants the religious right to come to grips with the fact that they can't tell people what to do all the time. He wants compromise and cooperation.


Where in there did you fail to read that he IS courting the evangelical right?

"A war, which war, the war on Communism or the war on drugs which he proliferated via the CIA and had fall guy Ollie forget about all the details?" - Lucky

You asked, I answered. He'd be a fairly inhuman and unlikable candidate if he didn't let us in on some of his personal feelings. I'm glad he expounded. It gives me confidence that he will act in a libertarian way despite personal misgivings. Your take on the evangelical right question is still way off the mark, and your last response proved it. He expounded on his answer, thus clarifying his position to thinking adults. Again, the question had nothing to do with personal choice, so I'm not sure where you're getting that angle from.

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

SOme of his principles are great, but like all Libertarians I've spoken with / read about, they're pathetic when it comes to questions of what to do with elderly and disabled. They say, "LEAVE IT TO CHARITY." This is the main reason why I leave every nutjob Libertarian with the feeling that they are clueless. Can they even put together a format of what the expenditures are now and what they will be and how the needy will be taken care of. They just skim over it and say teh church will take care of it.

The church will take care of it. The government taking care of it means money was forcibly taken from one person and given to another. Charity is voluntary. Strangely, I am not left feeling clueless in your presence.

The church will take care of what, the several hundred billion dollar social svs bill? GENIUS, just fucking BRILLIANT. WHat you're saying, FUCK THE POOR AND DISABLED because you know the church won't generate 10% of what they need, so let the elderly and ill die. WHy is it that you guys can't admit that? D you think the church can get even a few % of what is needed? This is hwy your party is a joke.

>>>>>>>>>>>>The government taking care of it means money was forcibly taken from one person and given to another.

And when a person is ill, disabled, etc they need the help of thier countrymen and women, not rhetoric about personal responsibility. The idea is that it night be you one day and you would want assistance, even if it measured up to be millions of dollars to live.

>>>>>>>>>Charity is voluntary.

Disabilities are involuntay, but I agree, fuck em and let em die. I wonder what it's like at your house when the news reports shootings and other societal ill. I bet your appauled and surprised. WHat a joke.


>>>>>>>>>>Strangely, I am not left feeling clueless in your presence.

Then clue me in on what kind of dump truck you will have the gov buy to pick up the dead bodies from the church taht is unable to care for all the ill folks.

[masterblaster72 0]

Quote

That's rhetotic, substance is that he's pro-life. We can dance around all day with BS about various general philosophies, but when we are cornerd and have to shit, that's what you get, [B]a candidate who is pandering to the moral righties. It is exemplified here with the quote you posted:

Can you characterize a typical Ron Paul supporter?
No. The characteristic is they're not typical, and we're proud of it. We talk about it all the time--freedom brings diversity. It brings people together. [/B]

This reads, "bla-bla-bla" What reads as substance is when someone says, 'I'm for universal care, I'm for choice, I'm for pro-life, I'm for the war,etc..' I'm sure you'll agree. I can say I'm for all people having health insurance, but until I talk about personal repsonsibility or universal care do I really plant myself in one corner. RP pinned himself down by saying he's pro-life, that was substance, that snippet was rhetoric and cheerleader dribble.

That you refer to his quote about bringing people together as "pandering to the moral righties" says more about you than it says about Ron Paul.

Assuming that you are going to support Hillary once she gets nominated -- you are choosing to support a candidate that voted in favor of the Iraq war (Ron Paul voted against it). You are choosing to support a candidate that voted in favor of the Patriot Act, twice (Ron Paul voted against it).

I value consistency and conviction; you value the party line and democratic-left rhetoric (note your rants about evangelicals).

I don't much fancy Ron Paul's anti-abortion stances myself (I'm pro-choice)...and I certainly don't fancy evangelicals. But if a man can bring someone like me (a liberal) and an evangelical together, I say RIGHT ON. That's the kind of leadership this country needs right now.

And if you think Ron Paul is full of hot air and rhetoric, look at what he says versus his voting record. There's nothing but conviction and consistency in it. That goes a *long* way with me, even if there are positions of his that I disagree with.

If you don't value that, and value politics as usual (in other words, republican vs. democrat)...I don't think we have much left to discuss. All I can recommend is that you read more on the man -- I'm sure there are plenty of positions of his you may identify with.

One last question -- would you refer the quote I posted before as characteristic of a "neo-con"?

Quote

But when I talk to people and they say, "You can be against the war and still be conservative?" I say, "Certainly." The conservative position is to not start wars and to obey the Constitution.

Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up.

[Lucky... 0]

Since you need to cherrypick, I will go back and post the entire passage:

A war, which war, the war on Communism or the war on drugs which he proliferated via the CIA and had fall guy Ollie forget about all the details? Get it, the wa on drugs was/is BS. As for the war on Communism, the Ruskies were great in WWII, we helped them beat the Germans and they were gonna march into Japan and kick their asses too until we decided to do the unthinkable; kill 200-300k mostly women and children.

Other tna the bay of pigs, the Ruskies were not a threat. Really, it was a checkmate but Reagan decide dto use it as a reason to hand over all the US money, current and future to the US corps. Can't you see that the USSR was a joke? Their monetary system has always been a joke. Explain to me why Reagan gets the credit for beating the Russians when:

1) We have had a cold war biuldup since post WWII

2) The wall fell 4 months after Reagan left office

3) The wall fell due to Communism being an unfeasable economic system, just as US Capitalism is falling.

Howis it the second to last guy getting all the credit for a 45-year cold war? I mean LBJ blew plenty of cash on BS war machinery too, why not gove him credit? What was the USSR such a threat with? WHat were they planning to do? There was no was on, we just got out of one; VN. Can't you see these nutjob Repubs are always fighting a war, even if they have to create one?


You then stated I should go refresh my knowledge on WWII. I think I made my points with the above.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He'd be a fairly inhuman and unlikable candidate if he didn't let us in on some of his personal feelings.

Continue to parade around for him, that's what cult followings do instead of being realistic and saying that he's the closest thing to what you want, not perfect. You realize that he is pandering to the RR. He may have to pay them back if ever elected, that makes him a sell-out.

>>>>>>>>>>>It gives me confidence that he will act in a libertarian way despite personal misgivings.

No, Libertarians would say, 'Leave it to states, PERIOD.' And you know it.

>>>>>>>>>Your take on the evangelical right question is still way off the mark, and your last response proved it. He expounded on his answer, thus clarifying his position to thinking adults. Again, the question had nothing to do with personal choice, so I'm not sure where you're getting that angle from.

Ah, thinking adults....your PA's are so clever. Just because your so-called Libertarain candidate has been exposed as a garden variety Republican. Hell, if he's not Republican, then why is he:

1) Running as a Repblican

2) Pandering to the moral right

3) Praising Reagan's fights with various departments

4) He is a Republican US Representative from Texas

Leaders of the Texan Republican Party made similar efforts to defeat him in 1998, but Paul again won the primary and the election. The Republican congressional leadership then agreed to a compromise: Paul votes with the Republicans on procedural matters and remains nominally Republican in exchange for the committee assignments normally due according to his seniority. This is arguably similar to the deal that Senator Jim Jeffords of Vermont has with the Democratic Party (though Jeffords was elected as a Republican and is now officially independent). Paul was convincingly re-elected in 2000 and 2002. He was elected unopposed in 2004 to his ninth term in the Congress.


5) His base of support has been among conservative Republicans, http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ron_Paul#Political_career

Top Contributors to Ron Paul (R) During the 2006 Election Cycle
Rank Donor Amount (US Dollars)
1 Credit Union National Assn $ 10,000
2 National Assn of Realtors $ 8,000
3 Davis-Lynch Inc $ 6,200
4 Dunn Capital Management $ 4,000
4 Eon Silicon Solutions $ 4,000
4 Morton Buildings $ 4,000


Ya, when exclusively/generally banks and real estate cos finance you, you are a........ Republican

Still think he's not a Republican?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again, the question had nothing to do with personal choice, so I'm not sure where you're getting that angle from.

Asked how he felt about abortion, he replied he's always been against it. OK, so that's not the same as pro-life?

[SpeedRacer 1]

I don't get why you say he's a neo-con.

Neo-cons are in favor of pre-emptive war and an interventionist foreign policy. (Some of the more extreme neo-cons are admitted imperialists.)

Ron Paul is staunchly against that. Even more so than Clinton is.








edited to add

Quote

Like a good neo-con, fuck the worries of gov control to trade them for the moral vote as any sell-out would do. *** I don't even understand this sentence at all.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

I guess the joke's on you, you are the last guy thinking there is a difference. For fuck's safe, how many times does a candidate/politican have to cross back and forth between Repub/Libertar before everyon figures it out?

Again, there is a distinctive messianic quality to your posts. You claim to see what nobody else sees. Know what others do not know.

If you are the ONLY one who thinks something, then you may wish to evaluate whether you are correct. I am certainly not a fan of consesus, but there are times when it is useful.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

>>>>>>>>>>>It gives me confidence that he will act in a libertarian way despite personal misgivings.

No, Libertarians would say, 'Leave it to states, PERIOD.' And you know it.

That is exactly his position on abortion, actually. Leave it to the states.

I posted his statements on abortion in another thread (brief transcript from an interview) here it is again:
--------------------
OK, just to clear things up, here is what Ron Paul had to say about abortion:


JUDY WOODRUFF: Abortion, you've said you'd like to make it impossible for the federal government to regulate abortion, which would, in effect, I guess, negate Roe v. Wade.

REP. RON PAUL: Yes, it would, because I think that's a state issue.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And then the states would be able to do away with abortion.

REP. RON PAUL: That's right.

JUDY WOODRUFF: I mean, in effect, would you like to see abortion banned everywhere? Or what's your position on that?

REP. RON PAUL: I'd like to ban the federal government intervention in abortion. So since I've only been a federal official -- a congressman and then running for the presidency -- I say that we should keep our hands out of it. . . .

The states, they should deal with it, because they're difficult. The more difficult an issue is, the more local the solution ought to be.

--------------------

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[champu 1]

Quote

PERIOD.' And you know it.

When you chose to start ignoring my responses to your posts, I decided addressing your questions was a waste of my time. After this thread, I've decided reading your posts to be such a waste as well.

Consider this my unilateral denunciation of your presence here. Have a good evening.

[Royd 0]

Quote

we helped them beat the Germans and they were gonna march into Japan and kick their asses too until we decided to do the unthinkable; kill 200-300k mostly women and children.

You really do hate this country, don't you?

[warpedskydiver 0]

I thought that was quite obvious.