Replies

See post 22 for Ron Paul's left wing voting record.

Interestingly I see nothing wrong with that voting record and nothing left wing about it. Why? Because most of that nonsense is not the business of the national government. Course that's just the Federalist in me that recognizes the responsibility and powers of the separate and sovereign states as outlined in the Constitution under the 10th Amendment.

What we need to do is some redefinition for the 'conservatives' around here

1) Conservative- Classical liberal in the sense of Jefferson, states rights and the power belongs to the states unless specifically prohibited by the Constitution. Also tend to not to believe in Wilsonian nonsense (i.e. spreading democracy to the 'savages').
2) 'Conservative' -- Nationalists in the strain of that ass Hamilton (who advocated for a monarchy during the Convention BTW). Sees no use in the states and believes all issues should be decided by 537 hacks in Washington DC. The problem with this of course is that different states have different standards. For example NC is going to see the issue of homosexuality different than say Massachusetts. This is understood and Mr. Madison clarified the position and power of the states in Federalist 45. However, 'conservatives' are moral authoritarian absolutists who believe the law should punish those who don't believe as they do (much like New England Puritans). Whether or not the issue itself is wrong is beside the point. What is the point is what the government can or should do about it. Also ardent supporters of globalist government as long as 'we' (the collective American nation) are in control (see American hegemony and Bill Kristol's nonsensical writings)
'Conservatives' can be lumped in with modern liberalism as they also support Progressive acts of the early 20th century and the only difference between modern liberals and these hacks is not if something should be done, but what should be done.

Now you can choose to twist, call names, do whatever you like but this goes back to the original argument between Mr. Jefferson and Hamilton. Are we a Constitutional Republic or not?

Please don't bother replying wa. The Paulhaters don't debate the facts, they only have one liners in return

As a “Paulhater”* I would, if not at work, be happy to spend time “debating’ the facts. However, I will say the problem that I find is the “Stuck in 8th Grade Civics” approach that he and his supporters take to the way our country has worked for over 200 years. Even Jefferson himself worked outside the Constitution if it benefited the country, allowing to take some advantage or stake for the good of the nation. Just research the Louisiana purchase.

Pragmatism is what bridges the gulf between Jeffersonian ideals and Hamilton's get it done approach.

The founders knew their limits, knew time would change and that certain things would be in the purview of the “Federal Government” They entrusted future generations to act with the Constitution in one hand and common sense in the other. The perfect mix is somewhere between then and what we have now, neither position pure in its form or execution.

*(not accurate I dont hate him at all, just fear he is overly naive about 21st threats and business)