Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Because Ron Paul is a paleo-conservative. His stance on abortion locks him in as one. He's not exactly a secular libertarian or Objectivist (now there is another hairball philosophy). He's a few steps away from John Birch Society.
Libertarianism doesn't work. In the absence of a government effecacious enough to protect the interests of people it represents, other powers inevitably step in and shape the world in a manner than suits them. Libertarianism is anti-democratic, because it takes powers away from people and throws it into the wind and sees who catches it. People with big hands grab the most. Then they call that justice.
Odd, I have been called a paleoconservative by a few folks and I am pro-choice. You may be thinking of social conservative?
Paleo conservatism is very libertarian by nature, and in fact in the distant past of this country it was even referred to as liberal compared to the politics of the day. Libertarianism is a fairly general description of a political leaning as is conservative or liberal. I have encountered few people in my life that are truly pure anything politically if for no other reason than it is rather subjective.
You have a strange view of Libertarianism, as most Libertarians I know hold the Bill of Rights and the Constitution on a higher platform than most other political leanings who see more grey than black and white when interpreting our laws and rule of government.
He is a better choice than the front runners who only want more of what we have now, like more money in their pockets, more war, more illegal invaders, less for the middle class. we need someone like him to shake things up in DC.
I agree a lot with what evilnewbie says about Paul, but, he has no minority, nor major base. However, his presence in the Repub debate overall, really do a great job of showing up the neocons running, and the weak thinking of all the GOP candidates. They are catering to the base that has almost destroyed them......DUH ! I feel there is no future for the GOP. How can they support an ideology that has just wasted $9 trillion, thats 5 trillion surplus in 2000, plus current 4trillion presently. Give or take a couple dollars. Burning $9 trillion is a hell of a BBQ.
I agree a lot with what evilnewbie says about Paul, but, he has no minority, nor major base. However, his presence in the Repub debate overall, really do a great job of showing up the neocons running, and the weak thinking of all the GOP candidates. They are catering to the base that has almost destroyed them......DUH ! I feel there is no future for the GOP. How can they support an ideology that has just wasted $9 trillion, thats 5 trillion surplus in 2000, plus current 4trillion presently. Give or take a couple dollars. Burning $9 trillion is a hell of a BBQ.
Well Ron Paul isn't a party outsider as much as the Republican party strayed from what it used to be. One of the biggest reasons there is so much flack from the GOP concerning Paul is that the GOP is infected with a viral parasite known as the neoconservative bug. It pretends to be conservative but in fact it is merely a group of militant liberals who don't fit in either party precisely but are still opportunistic enough to get some people from both sides to drink their brew. (these are the 24% from the GOP and a similar number from the DNC)
Fret not though as like all things the GOP is heading towards a readjustment period where it will purge these vile, cowardly scumbags and return to its core principles of smaller government, fiscal responsibility, and a higher moral standard. (or at least I hope so)
Ron Paul is a throw back that shocks some and is welcomed by others but most importantly he is shaking the foundations of the DC to NY corridor of more of the same. Despite winning or placing of showing in 97% of all staw polls where people have to show up to vote, despite bringing in rivers of cash that is blowing away anyone else on the ticket, despite every place he shows up there is a large group of supporters cheering him on and even at opponents rallys, he is scorned, diminished, and shunned by his own party and the media. As hard as it is to believe, this is actually a good thing.
What's troubling is some Democrats seem to think he's OK. Not alot but some.
Raun Paul is just a paleo-conservative with a nice coat of shined wax. Pat Buchannan retooled for the 21st century. I find that thoroughly unimpressive. Granted, I find paleo-conservatives less offensive than neo-conservatives, but they are both conservatives and prefer to find all the solutions in the past or status quo. That's not what this country or the world needs in an American president. We need somebody with some imagination and vision, not a fundamentalist who thinks there's a canon of scriptures out there to follow regarding what the government should or shouldn't be doing. Laissez-faire is not going to tackle tough issues like healthcare, Peak Oil, or Global Warming.
By immagination you mean oil paying for the war in Iraq, and vision that is so blinded that the president can't look out the window and see the illegal immigrants?
By immagination you mean oil paying for the war in Iraq, and vision that is so blinded that the president can't look out the window and see the illegal immigrants?
Is that why the price of oil is up to 96 a barrel?
i was a registered democrat, but i support ron because, as a 20 year old, i am concerned with the prospect of a military draft, and he is the only one that has been strongly opposed to spreading the war into iran.
If Iran were to attack us, what would Ron Paul do? How would he pay for it? How would he pay/justify spying to ensure that another country doesn't attack us?
What's troubling is some Democrats seem to think he's OK. Not alot but some.
Raun Paul is just a paleo-conservative with a nice coat of shined wax. Pat Buchannan retooled for the 21st century. I find that thoroughly unimpressive. Granted, I find paleo-conservatives less offensive than neo-conservatives, but they are both conservatives and prefer to find all the solutions in the past or status quo. That's not what this country or the world needs in an American president. We need somebody with some imagination and vision, not a fundamentalist who thinks there's a canon of scriptures out there to follow regarding what the government should or shouldn't be doing. Laissez-faire is not going to tackle tough issues like healthcare, Peak Oil, or Global Warming.
While I am not a Ron Paul fan, frankly I find this re-labeling to be somewhat amusing:
1. Liberal to Progressive (says who and weren't you proud of being liberal? Why not just come out of the closet and call yourselves Socialists or Marxists?)
2. Global Cooling back in the 70s to Global Warming now (say what? Was global cooling too, you know, cold?)
3. Pro-abortion (pro-death) to pro-choice (aw, let's make killing babies upbeat)
4. Tree hugger to green (makes me think you're pro-money, you might want to reconsider since you are also pro-welfare state)
5. Illegal alien to undocumented worker (what, so we don't think they dropped in from outer space? What do you libs call a criminal illegal alien --- a wayward undocumented entrepreneur?)
So if you want to call us paleo conservatives, neo conservatives, mesozoic conservatives or jurassic conservatives---we're still conservatives. We don't run away from what we are by disingenuous relabeling.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.