Ron Paul supporters who will not support the GOP nominee are Liberals

You are correct, dairyair. He is personally against abortion on scientific, not religious, grounds. But, he supports the states' rights to legislate it or not. Ditto gay marriage and most social issues. The Constitution dictates his views on the limits of federal power. True libertarians support freedom even when they disagree with it. Very few pass the test.

 

BTW, Dr. Paul could easily use the 14th amendment to limit abortions since he takes the scientific viewpoint that life begins at conception.

 

Nobody's ever conducted a 3 way poll with Paul. Can *you* cite a single 3 way poll with Romney that shows him winning?
/ what a half-baked question...

 

That's why I think there are as many genuine libertarians as socialists in America. The fundamental problem is, if you notice, the philosophy of national capitalism, truly what our founders were, a perfectly normal and viable classification of political philosophy, is NO WHERE in our society. The term isn't on movies or TV. Not refereed to in textbooks except to be demonized by history. I can see no lesser evil for this nation than a "libertarian" who bends his philosophy went it contradicts with the document. Even though Paul supports free trade with ANY foreign nations, when he is against broad sweeping approaches to legislation internally, something he needs to come to terms with, the fact is a strict constitutionalists means he supports the system where I could be represented and maybe even change things. There is no touching the globalist's power with the constitution as it stands now. Between lack of public understanding with the power to vote, a cartel in control of media, a cartel in control of finance, an oil cartel, a war cartel, a medicine cartel, a trade cartel...all who agree on 99% of what goes on to this date, there is no fixing America without dropping balls and letting them hang.

I'll argue for Paul, vote for Paul, hope he stands a chance. But in the end the system is tainted, the pillars of constitutional strength, the walls, the locks, the gates...are all but crumbles on vultures kitchen floors. We all know what needs to be done, but work with all our might to convince ourselves "things aren't that bad". We are beat because we are scared.

 

And what reputable medical authorities does he base this on?

 

Where? Post quote and page number please.

That is not cheering for Obama. That is cheering for Ron Paul. I will continue to cheer for Ron Paul when he defects and runs as an Independent. Saying I'd rather have X than Y doesn't necessarily mean I want X to happen. You are making a logical fallacy. Or intentionally making strawmans on me. I can't tell which.

What do they disagree on? I can see they pretend to disagree. Pretending is not real.

You mean like how Republicans and Democrats agree on foreign aid?
Excessive military spending?
Endless wars?
Protectionism?
Economic Sanctions?
Getting involved in entangled alliances?
Funding the United Nations?
Funding the IMF/World Bank?
Keeping the Federal Reserve and the central banking system?
Bailouts?
Spending this country hopelessly in debt?
Destroying the dollar?
Social Security?
Continual expansion of the size of government?
The Patriot Act?
The National Defense Authorization Act?
Generalized expansion of the Police State?
Suppressing the 10th amendment?
Not securing the borders?
Wanting to give a pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens?
Continuing the failed War on Drugs?
Continuing to allow corporate and banking lobbying to control Congress?
Government takeover of the healthcare system?

And the list goes on and on and on.

Where? Post quote and page number please.

It's burning to the ground anyway. Paul wants to put the fire out. The Republicans want to give the fire more oxygen and wood, Obama wants to pour gasoline on it, and Paul wants to put the fire out.

You seem to be operating under the delusion that there is some meaningful difference between Democrats and Republicans. Between any of the Republicans and Obama. There really isn't when you get down and examine it. Sure, they may squabble over minor issues, but in the end - they all agree on the most fundamental issues.

Yep, it's hard to debate with someone who makes strawmans and logical fallacies.

Is that the best you can come up with? Judge appointments?

Here is an example of a strawman. I never once said that I would vote for Obama.

"Keep spewing this lie all you want"

That is you. You are being that person.

You have given no such thing. All you've proven is that all of the judges rule against the Constitution at least half of the time.

The country is (*)(*)(*)(*)ed anyway. Ron Paul is the last hope we have. The state of the country doesn't matter to you; all you are concerned with is getting Obama out, no matter what it takes, and no matter who we replace him with. Even if it's somebody exactly like Obama with an (R) next to his name. That is enough to satisfy you. Fox News has programmed you well.

 

the corporatists don't need the white house to enrich themselves. They don't care. The presidential election is for entertainment and distraction.

 

then leave it at that. Someone made him look bad, but the only racist is the "someone", not him.

 

SSSSHHHHHH! you weren't supposed to notice.

 

I'm a genuine Socialist and I think calling Libertarians, "Socialists" is offensive.

 

You're right. I actually meant to say that the Republicans and Democrats are polar opposites in every way possibly imagineable.

 

So would I...that's why I cannot support Romney. He seems to have no core beliefs, but he is, at best, a wishy-washy moderate. At worst, he is a statist. And yet again: He has no chance of winning the election. He will be annihilated in the general election, up to and including the fact he is going to lose his home state.

I never said that. (And, of course, Romney is not and never was a conservative.)

 

No, he doesn't. Obama will not just beat, but CRUSH Romney in a general election.

 

WHAT ideology?! The one he spouts now, the one he spouted five years ago, or the one he spouited in 1995? His core beliefs are every bit as firm as Bill Clinton's and John Kerry's!

 

It is customary to actually READ and UNDERSTAND a post before quoting & responding to it. Not mandatory, you understand, but customary.

 

Sorry, maybe I overreacted. I'm a little on edge.

 

I believe you are right. Like I said, no one really likes Romney. That makes it easy to stay home on election day. In 2008, Pbama got about 9.5 million votes more than McCain. Compare that to the 3 million difference between Kerry and Bush in 2004 and the near tie of 2000. I just don't see that many pbama voters staying home or voting republican. IMO, if we nominate Romney, we are nominating another McCain except without the heroic military past and experience. I might just stay home.

 

I meant there are as many people who call themselves libertarians that wouldn't want the end result, as people who call themselves socialists who wouldn't want the end result. I was not implying libertarians are socialist, even though there are a faction of collectivists who claim to be so. People jumping on bandwagons, hoping it rides them off to freedom town, on a planet controlled by a few who think ideologies are retarded in general. Globalists get what they want, the rest, mice in a maze. The only thing to counter a globalized elite using anything from any ideology, so long as it benefits them, is a national elite using anything from any ideology to benefit the nation.

 

Democrats=Communist

Republicans=Socialist

both combined=statism

Libertarians=Constitutional Government

 

Really? Let's compare Romney to Obama. Obama is a "tax and spend" Democrat, correct?

Let's look at Romney's record when he was the Governor of Massachusetts:

The Massachusetts state budget was $22.7 billion a year when he took office in January of 2003. When he left office four years later, it was over $25.7 billion – plus another $2.2 billion in spending that the legislature took “off budget.” That's a $5.2 billion increase, or a 22.9% increase, in spending in four years.

While Romney says he didn't "raise taxes" he "closed loopholes and increased fees for government services" (i.e. raised taxes) to cover these increases in expendatures.

The only real difference between Romney and Obama is that Obama is borrowing to pay for increased spending while Romney increased taxes by "closing loopholes and increasing fees" to pay of new spending. Obama would raise taxes but the House, controlled by Republicans, has blocked tax increases preferring instead to increase the national debt through deficit spending.

Generally speaking there really is no difference between Republicans and Democrats except it seems that Republicans prefer increasing the national debt at the federal level to pay for more spending while Democrats call for more taxes. In either case the size and cost of government will continue to increase under either Republicans or Democrats, the national debt will continue to increase, and taxes are going to go up.

 

See post #456 for my response to this, please.

 

A true conservative wouldn't support the big government for big business Republican party. If Mitt Romney is the best you guys have, it's your own fault that you didn't support Paul earlier in the process when the main stream (yes Fox is main stream) media refused to even present him as any kind of serious candidate in the race. Ron Paul was the only chance Republicans had at beating Obama. As a third party candidate, I still think he's got a chance at taking the presidency, and in my opinion, that's a win for true conservatives everywhere.

Maybe you need to start thinking about why you're loyal to a party that offers up the likes of Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, and Herman Cain as leaders. Maybe it's time to resist the two party corporate oligarchy.

 

Then you accept an Obama second term. Its that simple. You are not and never will be a true conservative because you are willing to accept a second Obama term because the GOP isn't perfect. Accept what you are. An Obama supporter.

 

I look forward to your reponse to post 456.

 

Reading and comprehension should be required before answering.

As stated, both parties increase gov't. One through more taxes, one through more debt. All candidates but 1 maybe 2 (huntsman) will reduce gov't spending.

You as a, ahem, "true conservative" still want someone who's going to increase govt?