While they have their differences, they are both conservative, no question about it.
I have some "conservative" preferences--don't always side with the unions, would like more anti-porn regulation, believe in individual responsibility, don't want legalization of mj--but I am clearly a liberal Democrat: Could NEVER vote Republican. And I'm perfectly happy with being called a liberal Democrat.
I don't think either of the Pauls would ever vote for a Democrat. And I don't think they mind being called conservatives.
When addressing political affiliations, lumping is okay by me.
There is nothing 'conservative' about Ron Paul. He is a 'truther' nutter. He runs under 'Republican' but is a Libertarian. He knows he couldn't win jack if he ran under 'libertarian.
The old fool made the statement the other day that the people who are against the 9/11 mosque are 'Islamophobic' and 'haters'.
National Review Online ^ .Rep. Ron Paul (R., Texas) has issued a lengthy statement condemning “neo-conservative” opposition to the Park51 project. “This is all about hate and Islamaphobia,” said Paul: It has been said, “Nero fiddled while Rome burned.” Are we not overly preoccupied with this controversy, now being used in various ways by grandstanding politicians? It looks to me like the politicians are “fiddling while the economy burns.”The debate should have provided the conservative defenders of property rights with a perfect example of how the right to own property also protects the 1st Amendment rights of assembly and religion by supporting the building of the mosque.Instead, we hear lip service given to the property rights position while demanding that the need to be “sensitive” requires an all-out assault on the building of a mosque, several blocks from “ground zero.”Just think of what might (not) have happened if the whole issue had been ignored and the national debate stuck with war, peace, and prosperity. There certainly would have been a lot less emotionalism on both sides. The fact that so much attention has been given the mosque debate, raises the question of just why and driven by whom?In my opinion it has come from the neo-conservatives who demand continual war in the Middle East and Central Asia and are compelled to constantly justify it.They never miss a chance to use hatred toward Muslims to rally support for the ill conceived preventative wars.Paul seems to flirt with the Imam Rauf line that American foreign policy in the Middle East invited the September 11 attacks:If it became known that 9/11 resulted in part from a desire to retaliate against what many Muslims saw as American aggression and occupation, the need to demonize Islam would be difficult if not impossible.There is no doubt that a small portion of radical, angry Islamists do want to kill us but the question remains, what exactly motivates this hatred?If Islam is further discredited by making the building of the mosque the issue, then the false justification for our wars in the Middle East will continue to be acceptable.Meanwhile, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D., Ill.) is breaking ranks with Harry Reid and supporting the Park51 project:“The mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg, has given his assent to this center and I support his decision,” Durbin said Sunday. “The politicians like Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin who try to divide America with fear and hate over this issue betray the diversity which makes our nation great and the Constitution which they profess to honor.”http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/244493/ron-paul-all-about-hate-and-islamophobia-daniel-foster.______________________________________Anyone who can’t understand that a mosque at ground zero is nothing but a monument to the terrorists and a symbol of Islamic victory over liberty is too big an idiot to pay attention to. ...Don’t worry Ron, all your populist issues will still be around for you preach about on late night talk radio. You can still help liberals win elections.Or if he sticks his crazy old butt into the next presidential race, he'll split up the vote and guarentee another Obama victory for sure.Speaking of the Libtardtarian platform, check out this post by the Executive Director of the Libertarian National Committee on how to run the 2012 campaign (hint, run against Reagan).http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=258126
Really? The U.S. is characterized that way? By whom?
Certainly not by gays, by immigrants, by Muslims, by the homeless, by the unemployed or by many others living in poverty here in the U.S., with whom most of us posters rarely interact. And not by us liberals.
Notice how often a member of a minority in this country will accept when you offer to hold the door or let him/her to pass first--in the grocery aisle, through a doorway in a public building, etc. When they still act as a servant would with his master, do they really feel free? And do they feel we are tolerant when they hear Glen Beck or other FOXers denigrate them? Or when they lie about our president because they don't like the color of his skin? There are very few of us liberals who are accepting of the status quo. Your claim that we liberals are conservatives is comical.
Tom, I think you may just be the most interesting cyberperson I have ever "met".
In my opinion the United States is a nation that is currently characterized to a large degree by freedom, tolerance and related concepts, meaning that those liberal concepts are the status quo in present day America, so to support these liberal concepts one would be supporting the status quo and therefore would be a conservative.
I think you are dealing with a completely different situation today. Conservatives are all for freedom and less government control in our lives, while liberals are for the opposite. Hardly fits the dictionary definition.
Liberals claim to be the tolerant ones, but it seems that once you disagree with them, tolerance and logic go out the window and you are a racist if you disagree with Obama. Huh???
"Resist, we much. Weï»¿ must, and we much. About that, be committed."