Whatever happened to Ron Paul?

Why would the GOP want him to speak at their convention? Paul preaches low taxes, cutting spending, restoring government to its Constitutional limits, and limited government.

The Republicans Party believes NONE OF THE ABOVE.

The party platforms in most states believe it. But, the elected "republicans" simply don't practice it.

This is exactly what the GOP believes. It is simply not practiced by the NEO Cons that control it. But that is about to change with McCain at the helm.

http://www.ontheissues.org/John_McCain.htm

I hope you are right. But right now I will reserve the right to be skeptical.

He doesn't believe in ANY, not any, of the foreign policy or social goals of the repub party. I figure that just because he does the dance on what he *says* the Constitution means, isn't enough for the party to embrace him. And, again... he already said he wouldn't support any nominee but himself.

Watch for Third Party Candidacy... :eusa_whistle:

True, and insightful. He is trying to work change from within as opposed to Perots attempt to work from without.

Strike against me? Are we having a discussion or playing baseball?

And I thought the nutter was the great libertarian...... no?? Guess he's only into small government when it isn't invading our bodies.

How so? Abortion (I am making an assumption that is what you meant by invading) should be a states issue. So should Marriage. So should Education. So should social programs.

Small Government at the Fed level is about your rights to do as you please without interference.

As for overturning Roe v Wade, neither he nor you or the other cheerleaders who talk about his Constitutional acumen know a thing about the Constitution or the body of caselaw comprising our law.

You are discussing two separate things here. The Constitution is one thing. Caselaw comprising the laws within the national government is another. I don't argue "caselaw" because my opinion is based on the Constitution. Your constitutional opinion is apparently based on caselaw. If the law is overturned, you must logically change your personal opinion because the foundation will have shifted. I don't have that problem. So, IOW, a lot of caselaw is wrong from the get go and merely quoting it as legal won't make it right.

I'm not the one who claims to have all the answers... that would be the "strict constructionists" who sit in front of their computer screens repeating what the loony right has told them.

As for States' rights... no. That issue has been long disposed of when we a) got rid of the articles of confederation in favor of the Constitution; and b) when the South lost the Civil War... end of story, honey.

You are correct that the states rights battle was lost then and there.

As the South lost that battle... the whole states' rights sham is only the battle cry of the radical religious right who thinks they should make everyone's moral decisions for them... youi know, the gay haters, the people who hate civil rights' laws, etc... those folk.

I hope you cannot pull any of my posts that add up to what you've said there.

Dunno... but you guys are radical, not conservative... by definition, conservatives don't want to destroy everything.. they want to maintain status quo.

You should find a new name for yourselves because you aren't conservative.

I agree. I don't accept any label except "realist". I deal with the world as it is without much argument. But, on the matter of my opinions, I am not limited by that. There are many things I would love to see stricken from the fed. Drug laws, abortion, congress interfering in steroids, congress interfering with ceo pay, education, and social programs to name only a few.

Why? Because I earned the right to be left alone to live or die by my own actions. If I don't like the way a state does things, I can move. It's considerably harder to change my address to another country.
 
So instead, the GOP gives us McCain.

Like that's somehow any better.

Romney was head and toes better than both!

But RP got too much press. In reality he didn't do much better than Hunter, Brownbach, Tacredo or you and I. The only reason he got even 14 delegates is because all the REAL candidates concentrated in SC except RP, he concentrated on NV. Therefore that was the only place he did alright.
 
Romney was head and toes better than both!

But RP got too much press. In reality he didn't do much better than Hunter, Brownbach, Tacredo or you and I. The only reason he got even 14 delegates is because all the REAL candidates concentrated in SC except RP, he concentrated on NV. Therefore that was the only place he did alright.

He's got more than 14 delegates. You're listenting to the MSM, who isn't telling you the whole story. It's kind of like how Obama and Clinton have a certain number of REPORTED delegates, but they don't represent every delegate, bound and un-bound.

In reality, Paul has somewhere in the neighborhood of 60, and there may very well be more as some of the states hold their state conventions to choose delegates to go to the national. Not every state that's already had a primary or caucus is fully complete in the delegate appointment process.

That's the problem, most voters don't fully understand the nomination process for the parties, and how exactly delegates are chosen, bound, etc...or even what a delegate actually IS.

You certainly don't see the MSM educating you.
 

Forum List

Back
Top