Prove Ron Paul is Not A Conservative

[Paulie]

Many of you claim it, but none have backed it up with anything.

Not conservative as in what the pundits present to us as conservative or liberal, but conservative in the traditional sense.

Whatcha got?

 

[eots]

http://www.lyricsdownload.com/paris-sheep-to-the-slaughter-lyrics.html

Easily I approach, the microphone, in this land of jokes

Can't leave it alone, cause ya know, I could see right though

Corrupt plans and these bullshit scams and untruths

We livin' in a maze, different days and times

The world is a stage, most truth is a lie

In this propaganda matrix, the sheep just die

For these murderous conservatives with corporate ties

Deny knowledge of the truth, ignorin' the poor

They just human ammunition for these capital wars

Just human ammunition and collateral d

That's why millions of us holla risin' up in the streets

And when ya see me understand I'm representin' a voice

The majority would feel if ever given a choice

I don't need this seedy media they only annoy

Cause the only ones that wanna scrap ain't never deployed

Who do the fightin' for these rich white folks, and they wars

No it ain't Drew Carey, Dennis Miller or stars

Fox News, Mike Savage, Bruce Willis or Rush

Won't be MSNBC, CNN or a Bush

Never Toby Keith, Hannity, O'Reilly or Clint

Ain't ClearChannel - know they ain't supportin' dissent

Ain't Blair, Kid Rock, or Tom Cruise or vows

Of James Woods, Rob Lowe, Tom Selleck or Powell

Not Arnold Schwarzenegger, he ain't gonna shoot, or

Ted Nuget cause in war the targets got weapons too

Ain't Cheney, Rumsfeld, Halliburton or Ridge

Or Ann Coulter, or Joseph Lieberman or the rich

Or any bitch up in congress, they just make laws

When it comes to fightin' - we the ones that end up in gauze

So when you say "support that murderer," I have no applause

Even if he got his jumpsuit on - we pay the cost

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Many of you claim it, but none have backed it up with anything.

Not conservative as in what the pundits present to us as conservative or liberal, but conservative in the traditional sense.

Whatcha got?

Actually you claim he is, you prove it. Little hard to prove a negative ehh?

 

[Paulie]

Actually you claim he is, you prove it. Little hard to prove a negative ehh?

Dude, I've proven it throughout the time I've been a member here. Check his record.

I'm just tired of seeing people say he's not, especially the resident "conservatives" who are supporting guys like McCain or Romney.

It's not proving a negative, either. All I'm asking is provide some kind of documentation about the guy that shows him not to be conservative. Shouldn't be too hard for people who make the claim he's not conservative...afterall, they must have gotten that idea from SOMEWHERE...

 

[Ninja]

I'm liking RP more and more with McCain's ascent, he's definitely the most Conservative of the Republican candidates, but he's not exactly the "Mr. Principle" he's been made out to be by his supporters:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,292334,00.html

Earmarks for shrimp fishing. Sounds like something Pelosi would come up with.

 

[Paulie]

I'm liking RP more and more with McCain's ascent, he's definitely the most Conservative of the Republican candidates, but he's not exactly the "Mr. Principle" he's been made out to be by his supporters:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,292334,00.html

Earmarks for shrimp fishing. Sounds like something Pelosi would come up with.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2007/05/ron_paul_loves_earmarks/

It turns out, though, that for all his scourging of government excess, Paul never has been much of a crusader against earmarks. As he put it in a floor speech last year, “earmarks . . . are a symptom of the problem, not the cause. The real problem is that the United States government is too big, spends too much, and has too much power.”

Still, why play along by earmarking federal spending? Because a crackdown on earmarks, he says, would only grant the executive branch more control over where the money goes. The total amount of spending wouldn’t change. “There’s nothing wrong with designating where the money goes,” Paul says — so long as the earmark is “up front and everyone knows about it,” rather than having it slipped in at the last minute with no scrutiny.

In an ideal world, Paul says, there wouldn’t be a federal income tax. But since there is, he says, he feels a responsibility to help his constituents recover some of the tax dollars the government has taken from them. “I don’t want them to take it,” he says, “but if they do take it, I’d just as soon help my constituents get it back.”

You know, one purpose of a congressional district representative is to get local money for their district.

I like Paul's reason for the earmarks. It's better than the dance-around that most other politicians would give. That's REAL straight-talk, in my book.

Where the conflict of interst may lie, is if he's got personal connections to any of the people he's gotten earmarks for. I haven't seen that.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Ron Paul is very conservative. He supports small, limited government as described in the Constitution.

He's a little naive on how we get there from here, though. He points out that things like Federal control of retirement plans, medical insurance, etc., are unconstitutional (which is true), and so says we must privatize or abolish them immediately (which is terribly destructive).

And in areas that aren't conservative or liberal,such as foreign policy, he's basically suicidal. Since there has ben no declaration of war by the Congress (as required by the Constitution), we must pull out of Iraq, Korea, Gernamy, Japan, and other such places, immediately. And toss in Israel for good measure. Never mind the bloodbaths that will quickly ensue as people who depended on us get annihilated by the enemies we were helping to keep at bay... or the next target those enemies would then pick (us).

Paul is definitely conservative, in areas that can be defined as liberal/conservative. And that's very good. But in other areas, he's nuts. Electing him President would be a disaster.

 

[eots]

Ron Paul is very conservative. He supports small, limited government as described in the Constitution.

He's a little naive on how we get there from here, though. He points out that things like Federal control of retirement plans, medical insurance, etc., are unconstitutional (which is true),

and so says we must privatize or abolish them immediately (which is terribly destructive).

absolutely not correct he said in the last debate..that this would be a process but for our children's sake we need to at least start now

And in areas that aren't conservative or liberal, such as foreign policy, he's basically suicidal. Since there was no declaration of war by the Congress (as required by the Constitution), we must pull out of Iraq, Korea, Gernamy, Japan, and other such places, immediately. And toss in Israel for good measure. Never mind the bloodbaths that will quickly ensue as people who depended on us get annihilated by the enemies we were helping to keep at bay... or the next target those enemies would then pick (us).

bullshit the bloodbath is occurring right now.the invasion of a sovereign nation without a declaration of war is terrorism..germany is a capable nation and doesn't not require American troops..as is japan and there is a growing desire in japan to not have bases there and Israel has a nuclear arsenal and a large military no one is going to wipe out Israel if not for America..lets not forget (if your even aware) that there was amply intelligence to have adverted the wtc bombings and the events of 911..lets not forget john O'Neil . if the trillions spent on the military industrial complex was spent on limited covert operations and Intel..we could truly" win the war on terror"

Paul is definitely conservative, in areas that can be defined as liberal/conservative. And that's very good. But in other areas, he's nuts. Electing him President would be a disaster.

it is a disaster already ..Paul and what he represents is the only hope

 

[pegwinn]

Ron Paul is very conservative. He supports small, limited government as described in the Constitution.

He's a little naive on how we get there from here, though. He points out that things like Federal control of retirement plans, medical insurance, etc., are unconstitutional (which is true), and so says we must privatize or abolish them immediately (which is terribly destructive).

And in areas that aren't conservative or liberal,such as foreign policy, he's basically suicidal. Since there has ben no declaration of war by the Congress (as required by the Constitution), we must pull out of Iraq, Korea, Gernamy, Japan, and other such places, immediately. And toss in Israel for good measure. Never mind the bloodbaths that will quickly ensue as people who depended on us get annihilated by the enemies we were helping to keep at bay... or the next target those enemies would then pick (us).

Paul is definitely conservative, in areas that can be defined as liberal/conservative. And that's very good. But in other areas, he's nuts. Electing him President would be a disaster.

I disagree with Paul on the Declaration of War thing.

My disagreement is basically that the constitution is silent on the process to declare war.

Since the constitution is silent, we have to move to the rules of the house and senate. I've looked. The rules are silent. Thus we have to look at legislation.

A "Declaration of War" is fundamentally the same as "Authorisation to use military force" when you get right down to it. A "Declaration" is a statement, "Of war" implies that we are allowed to make war in an offensive manner (which is the use of military force). So, what is the difference? The only argument I see is that the title wording is different. I personally don't think it matters, but your opinion may vary.

But I do like his attempt to use Letters of Marque and Reprisal. Put a bounty of one billion in gold on Bin Ladin alive, or a million for a dna verified dead body. The Pakistani tourist industry could use the boost.

May I suggest a better challenge (not directed at you LA): Prove your boy is more conservative or constitutional than RP.

 

[Bern80]

It can't be done. On this board the main oppossers of Paul have been from the left. And of course they (*cough* JILLIAN *cough* *cough*) have yet to offer anything legitmate in terms of why Ron Paul would be such a bad president.

I said before so many on these boards and in the general public claim they want a real change in our government and leadership. For the best shot at that your choice has to be Ron Paul. Of course the dem candidates are advocating change, but are higher taxes, even bigger government, universal health care really what you want?

RP is as conservative as any to come down the pike. I'm pretty much sold on him, but skeptics please view this as an opportunity to provide some evidence as to why I shouldn't be. Until then I'm changeing my sig.

P.S. Jillian, my name isn't Denny, it's a quote from a TV show. Thought I'd save you from looking too stupid when you're trying to be condescending.

 

[Avatar4321]

quite frankly i don't really care enough to bother with it. Ron Paul isn't going to win. His campaigning has been impressive but he wont win a single state when this is all through. So whats the point of talking about how conservative he is?

 

[Bern80]

quite frankly i don't really care enough to bother with it. Ron Paul isn't going to win. His campaigning has been impressive but he wont win a single state when this is all through. So whats the point of talking about how conservative he is?

Then 'quite frankly' you are part of the problem. Your plan is to wait then until things get really shitty before we make any noise? Seriously, what a stupid question. Because Avatar deems it's a done deal we should stop talking about the people that most resemble our values. Makes perfect sense.

 

[Paulie]

quite frankly i don't really care enough to bother with it. Ron Paul isn't going to win. His campaigning has been impressive but he wont win a single state when this is all through. So whats the point of talking about how conservative he is?

Why do you think this might be, Avatar? While he's probably the most conservative politician we've had to choose from in a LOOOONG time, why is he not being embraced by conservatives, and people who want "change"?

What kind of change will Obama really bring? Maybe he'll figure out a way to balance the budget, but he sure as hell won't do it by cutting spending. He'll raise taxes, and it'll fucking KILL the middle class. The middle class is already teetering on the brink of collapse. And he certainly isn't going to be any less liberal about fighting the war on terrorism.

Romney, well, he'll talk all day about being for cutting taxes, but at the end of the day, he's going to end up being just as big a spender as Bush has been. Same with McCain.

I know many of you are afraid of the bad bad terrorists that want to do us harm, those evil-doers hell bent on destroying America, but there's no reason for us to bankrupt our nation while trying to stop one lone lunatic, or even 10, from smuggling a WMD across our RIDICULOUSLY porous borders, and blowing up a city. Who else is even talking about DEFENDING our borders??? All the Trillions of dollars in the world can be spent invading nations, and bombing the ever loving shit out of them, and there will still be people who hate us, that will find a way to attack us.

Ron Paul is the only one talking fucking SENSE, and people write him off because "he can't win". Why can't he? Why SHOULDN'T he?

 

[Paulie]

I disagree with Paul on the Declaration of War thing.

My disagreement is basically that the constitution is silent on the process to declare war.

Since the constitution is silent, we have to move to the rules of the house and senate. I've looked. The rules are silent. Thus we have to look at legislation.

A "Declaration of War" is fundamentally the same as "Authorisation to use military force" when you get right down to it. A "Declaration" is a statement, "Of war" implies that we are allowed to make war in an offensive manner (which is the use of military force). So, what is the difference? The only argument I see is that the title wording is different. I personally don't think it matters, but your opinion may vary.

But I do like his attempt to use Letters of Marque and Reprisal. Put a bounty of one billion in gold on Bin Ladin alive, or a million for a dna verified dead body. The Pakistani tourist industry could use the boost.

May I suggest a better challenge (not directed at you LA): Prove your boy is more conservative or constitutional than RP.

I think the overlying fundamental difference between Declaration of War, and "authorization", is that Congress decides when war happens, not the president. Congress voted to give Bush authorization, and then Bush was given carte blanche to use the military however he wanted, whenever he wanted, with regards to Iraq. That's not how it's supposed to work. Congress makes a War Declaration, and subsequently we go to war, win it, and come home.

The president doesn't get to use the military as he sees fit, and deny congress requests for things like benchmarks, timetables, withdraws, etc. Congress can make those requests, and the president must fulfil them. They have, and he hasn't. Just saying it'll "aid the enemy" doesn't make it any more legal.

 

[Gunny]

Many of you claim it, but none have backed it up with anything.

Not conservative as in what the pundits present to us as conservative or liberal, but conservative in the traditional sense.

Whatcha got?

Prove he is.

 

[manu1959]

americans in general are centrists.....ron paul may well be a constituional conservative......but extreme politics are losing their charm.....