If that's all you got, then perhaps you might want to reconsider your original label of "extremist libertarian". What, pray tell, is the difference between libertarian conservatism and "true" conservatism? Keeping in mind, of course, how much the ideologies have changed perceptually over the years. Paul would like to return to the principles of the founders, which is where your so-called "true" conservatism stems from. That is the ORIGINAL status quo. Much of the conservatism you refer to as "true" now, has changed DRASTICALLY from the original status quo. So who's the REAL conservative? The one who desires the original status quo, or the one who's so willing to change when the establishment wants more control? Look at today's "conservatives". The mainstream ones who don't get villified in the media are the authoritarians. How conservative is it to intervene in OTHER countries, when most of us conservatives have a problem with the government intervening in our OWN country? It's ok for us to dictate how OTHER civilizations live, but not ours. That seems a little strange to me. There's idiots overseas who could perhaps need some intervention to control their stupidity, and there's certainly idiots here in this country who fit the same bill. But it's ok to spend trillions intervening over THERE? How about we just leave EVERYONE alone, unless they directly inflict harm upon us? Why must we spend all that money being in almost 200 countries, many of which we don't even need to be in? So you can feel all warm and safe snuggling up in your blanket every night watching the Olympics? It's a fucking waste of money. No less a waste then giving trillions to people who refuse to work for it. You've just been duped into thinking it's necessary, when in actuality it's not. We're well prepared to defend ourselves from outside aggression without having to establish ourselves in everyone's backyard.