Paleowhateverism has nothing whatever to do with conservatism or Republicanism. For starters, paleos favor cowardly substitutes for foreign policy. Then there are the oddball "constitutional" views that ignore American history since 1787 in the ceaseless effort to guarantee "paper tiger" status for the USA and a near total inability to effect federal policies banning abortion and banning poofter make-believe posing as "marriage."
The Republican Party, whatever its imperfections, IS the Republican Party. Paleomoonbattism is paleomoonbattism. May the two never coincide. If paleoPaulie and his political love slaves are an example of small r republicanism, no thanks now or ever.
It was established early on that you’re only using Ron Paul threads for entertainment. It’s kind of like the “bananna” word game with “paleo”. Stone waste of time, doesn’t mean squat, but it’s kind of fun.
So you're promising me right now that you will not bitch and moan when "paleomoonbats" like me get drunk on Election Day rather than vote for your boy McCain and Obama rapes him in the general?
You put your trust and faith in omnipotent federal government. Any excuse to abandon the republic will do.
OK...while I can agree with you that Ron Paul's foreign policy prescriptions are out of touch with reality, what you state above is inaccurate.
Paleoconservatism, including a large dose of isolationism, is what conservatism largely was prior to the progressive movement and the New Deal, and has been a shrinking faction of conservatism since.
Heck, Russell Kirk was more or less a paleoconservative. He even opposed the Gulf War.
Now, whether Ron Paul is truly a paleoconservative is arguable, as he has many libertarian views, some of which are opposed to paleoconservative views.