Tuesday, June 19, 2007
The Ron Paul campaign has it all wrong.
They somehow are running with the notion that hitting every blog post that takes a position critical of Ron Paul with nasty comment after nasty comment. Somehow they figure this is going to get their candidate elected. All it's really doing is exposing the Paul campaign and its supporters for the nutjobs that they are.
First, let's make it very clear that I have no problem with Ron Paul. In fact, I posted my recent piece with the intention of proving him to be the most conservative candidate among the three I was analyzing, and even said so (proof that these comment spammers didn't read my post before throwing around their nasty comments).
My hypothesis at the beginning was that Paul would run away with the "most conservative" label, despite his non-support of protecting Americans from terrorists, with Thompson and Hunter coming in second and third, with second place being too close to call.After all, I do consider Libertarians in general more conservative than Republicans or (God forbid) Donks. Instead of reading my thoughtful analysis and commenting on it, these idiots decided to hit me over the head with their foolishness.
Ron Paul wants to get rid of the IRS and replace it with NOTHING! No more income taxes is that conservative enough for you? The other two neocons are just that NEOCONS! Ron Paul is the ONLY true conservative on the republican ticket. He's the ONLY reason I am going to change my party affliation to republican and you can thank HIM for that not the NEOCONS! Thank you very much.Yup ... and I support Paul and anyone else who wants to do just that. Still, what can you say to defend your position that Paul is more conservative than Hunter or Thompson? This is not a place where you get to throw words around and put up campaign slogans. If you're going to say something, then you had better be able to back it up.
I am fairly certain that ontheissues.org does not take into account all of the pork and unconstitutional amendments tacked on to these "conservative" bills. There is a reason that Ron Paul received the nickname of "Dr No" from his fellow congressmen. He consistently votes against unconstitutional bills, even if the bill has good intentions. Strictly following the Constitution is about as conservative as you can get. Agree with him or not, study the man, and you will find he has principles."No you may not" was my addition, removing a campaign commercial for Ron Paul. This is a classic example of attacking the messenger when you can't argue on the facts. How about Paul's non-conservative YES votes? Read the information. It's there.
May I suggest (No you may not).
Principles, my ass. Ron Paul is the same guy who made clear that he agreed that 9/11 was the work of Islamofascist terrorists, yet he kisses ass with the "truther" crowd again and again. If that's what you call "principles", then you're much better off hanging out at DU.
What a joke. You don't even explain what in the hell a so-called "conservative" position is. I wonder if you would even know it if it bit you on the tookus.Here's another idiot who has no clue.
Here's a hint: nuking Iran != conservative position. Here's another: getting support of Bush family != conservative position. I think that just about says it all right there.
I explain rather clearly what I consider a "conservative" position.
In deciding what to call conservative, I considered factors such as a position's constitutionality (which the Republicans ignore and the Libertarians obsess over) and its relevance with regard to said constitutionality and/or freedom (getting the government out of places it doesn't belong - like your wallet).Didn't read the post. You're lucky I didn't delete your sorry-ass comment.
Nuking Iran = conservative position? Yup. It is the responsibility of those in the government to secure the rights of the American people. That includes Life, Liberty, and Property. Ahmagaynutjob has made it abundantly clear that he will involve himself in the destruction of these rights by any means possible. Just read anything the guy says any given day for the proof. If nukes are necessary to keep him at bay, then so be it.
As far as supporting Bush being a conservative position, I challenge anyone - and I do mean ANYONE - to demonstrate that I have in any way been blind in support of this president, or even that I consider him conservative to begin with. Find it. Go on. You have two and a half years worth of posts here to draw on.
*** crickets ***
I'm waiting ...
*** crickets ***
You won't find it because it's not here. If I disagree with the president, I don't change my opinion to comply. I criticize the president often. Of course, if I agree, I make that clear, too. I don't just blindly disagree with him, either, as many Libertarians, and even more Donks, are apt to do.
If you think Ron Paul took the non-conservative position on guns 3 times out of 6, you have the positions labeled incorrectly. He has never voted against the Second Amendment, and never will.OnTheIssues.com's listing of Ron Paul's gun control positions:
* Ease procedures on the purchase and registration of firearms. (Nov 1996) - conservativeEasing restrictions is a conservative position. Ron Paul voted AGAINST protecting gun manufacturers and sellers from lawsuits arising from the sale of their product - TWICE. He also voted AGAISNT easing restrictions on people's ability to acquire arms in a timely manner. That's three out of six. If you want to bring forth arguments as to reasons Paul may have been justified in so voting, so be it. You may even change my mind. Still, until you do, Ron Paul is 3 for 6 on conservative votes on gun control.
* Allow law-abiding citizens to carry concealed firearms. (Nov 1996) - conservative
* Voted NO on prohibiting product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers. (Oct 2005) - NOT conservative
* Voted NO on prohibiting suing gunmakers & sellers for gun misuse. (Apr 2003) - NOT conservative
* Voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1. (Jun 1999) - NOT conservative
* Support the Second Amendment . (Dec 2000) - conservative
Hear, Hear once again! Hawkins has exposed his bias in terms of HIS idea of a conservative which ignores the fact that it used to include classical liberals of which, I am glad to report Ron Paul can be counted. He has simply ignored the information about Paul that does not suit his(Hawkins) agenda.In the interest of full disclosure, Sage is a friend of mine, and a very good one at that. He is by far the most conservative person I know, and a Bush-hating Libertarian. In our own personal discourse, however, he seems more suited to the Tom Tancredo crowd, and I'm not sure why he isn't riding that bandwagon instead of going with these loonies. The main position that Sage takes (and you wouldn't get this from his comments here at the RWRepublic) that causes me to think that is his position on the War on Terror. He doesn't agree with it. He thinks it's the wrong thing to do. But he hopes those that are prosecuting the war - those that agree with it and believe it is the right thing to do - are right. Sounds much more Tancredo to me than Paul.
That having been said, Sage, you are mistaken in pinning this on Hawk. I did this research hoping to prove Hawk wrong. It only served to prove him right (at least when it comes to Paul and his buddy Hunter). This post is entirely about what I think about the candidates and the information given. I don't claim it to be complete, but given what I see in the reports on ontheissues.com, which has been VERY fair to ALL the candidates EVERY time I've gone there, this is what I see.
What bothers me is the hate speech that these people engage in. You'd think they would want to attract more people to their candidate who, by the way, despite my findings here, is still a very good one. Instead, they engage in these shady practices and turn people away.
Is there anyone here who would deny that Ron Paul would be a better president than Hitlery? I don't think so. All I did was research the level of conservatism in the voting and position records of three candidates and offered my opinion of them. Don't you think someone who wanted me to vote for their candidate would show a little respect for that position?
I guess not.