No need to vote in the general election

[Toxick]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

If Paul were the conservative conservatives were looking for they would have voted for him.

He's not all that conservative, frankly.

Fiscally, yeah.
Socially - nope.

He's everything a politician should be: If it ain't allowed by the Constitution, then stuff it.

[kris31280 (Premo)]

There's always a reason to vote....

Specifically so I have a reason to wear my new tshirt.

[PsyOps]

Originally Posted by Toxick

He's not all that conservative, frankly.

Fiscally, yeah.
Socially - nope.

He's everything a politician should be: If it ain't allowed by the Constitution, then stuff it.

I wasn't answering to whether Paul was "all" conservative or not. I was answering to whether Paul was a viable alternative for republicans (conservative republicans) because of their disatisfaction with the Republican party; which obviously he's not.

And if he is not socially conservative then, for conservatives, he's not "everything a politician should be" for them. And if someone is socially liberal I doubt they have a firm constructionist stance on the constitution.

[AndyMarquisLIVE]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

I wasn't answering to whether Paul was "all" conservative or not. I was answering to whether Paul was a viable alternative for republicans (conservative republicans) because of their disatisfaction with the Republican party; which obviously he's not.

And if he is not socially conservative then, for conservatives, he's not "everything a politician should be" for them. And if someone is socially liberal I doubt they have a firm constructionist stance on the constitution.

Ron Paul is more conservative than the Party now.

Why has the Republican party turned so hawkish?

I wish there were more politicians like him. The constitution should be the only law of the land.

[bcp (Premo)]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

If Paul were the conservative conservatives were looking for they would have voted for him. That didn’t happen.

How do you know they didnt vote for him?
did you count the votes? did you physically watch everyone vote?

I am at the point that I have doubts in the way the vote works in this country, I think the government is appointing, and there is no way we can prove it.

[vanbells]

Originally Posted by AndyMarquisLIVE

The constitution should be the only law of the land.

Did you see me lay down the law?! I am the law giver!!!!

[Lenny]

Originally Posted by AndyMarquisLIVE

Why has the Republican party turned so hawkish?

Ah, young grasshopper, you will one day read a history book and understand what all those squiggles and lines mean. They depart words that form sentences to convey thoughts. These thoughts, especially in history books written 20-30 years ago, tell of the truth as shown through scientific and scholastic thinking (we will describe thinking for you in another session). Once you grasp the concept of reading and study, you may elect to read scholarly tomes rather than rely on MTV for your news and viewpoints. When you do this you will find that conservatives (known as Republicans) have for the most part been considered "hawkish" for many decades by the liberals and libertarians. Hawkish can generally be defined as patriotic. But, as a wise and criminally defective former president would say, "..it all depends upon what is is." when you consider the work hawkish.

[PsyOps]

Originally Posted by bcp

How do you know they didnt vote for him?
did you count the votes? did you physically watch everyone vote?

I am at the point that I have doubts in the way the vote works in this country, I think the government is appointing, and there is no way we can prove it.

Snide... very snide. Have you noticed who is leading the GOP race and who is not?

But your doubts are valid I think; not because Paul is losing but just because (like you) I don't trust the system anymore.

Also, I think conservatives shy away from Paul because of his stance on the war.

[AndyMarquisLIVE]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

Also, I think conservatives shy away from Paul because of his stance on the war.

Bingo. Republicans these days seem to think that you have to be for the Iraq war in order to be conservative. If you're against the Iraq war, your leftist, unpatriotic, want the terrorists to win, .

[PsyOps]

Originally Posted by AndyMarquisLIVE

Bingo. Republicans these days seem to think that you have to be for the Iraq war in order to be conservative. If you're against the Iraq war, your leftist, unpatriotic, want the terrorists to win, .

Wrong. It's part of the conservative platform. It's called a strong national defense. Did you know Paul thought Lincoln getting us into the Civil War was a mistake? From MSNBC

Paul repeated his claim that Abraham Lincoln should not have started the Civil War to get rid of slavery. "Six-hundred-thousand Americans died in the senseless Civil War," he said. "No, he should not have gone to war. He did this just to enhance and get rid of the original tenet of the Republic," he told NBC's Tim Russert.

The guy is way out there when it comes to understanding what is required to sacrifice and denfend this naiton. I don't think he would truly know when a declaration of war would be necessary.

National defense is something liberals aren't all that interested in. I don't profess that anyone is "leftist, unpatriotic, want the terrorists to win" just because they are against the war. But I will say they typically stand on the left of the fence today. It's all about politics. It's because there is a conservative Republican in the WH that is leading the charge and the libs don't like it. If it was Gore the libs would be silent. On this issue Ron Paul stands with the left. And he lost dearly because of it; not just to conservatives but to anyone that could have voted for him.