Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ron Paul on Social Conservatism: 'I Think It's a Losing Position'
CNS News ^

Posted on 02/20/2012 11:56:59 AM PST by mnehring

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141 next last

1 posted on 02/20/2012 11:57:06 AM PST by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: mnehring

Call me when a social conservative gets elected dog catcher and we can discuss aiming higher.


2 posted on 02/20/2012 12:05:33 PM PST by Jim Noble ("The Germans: At your feet, or at your throat" - Winston Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mnehring
"And they're not to be at the national level. We're not supposed to nationalize these problems.

Earth to RuPaul - the Supreme Court already did. Nearly 40 years ago.

3 posted on 02/20/2012 12:06:15 PM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mnehring

He’s right on about our tendency to Nationalize every single issue.

It’s at the heart of our problems, a one size fits all solution to every problem we have.

Let communities and states try their own thing out. The laboratories of democracy.

The fed should have such little power compared to what they have now.


4 posted on 02/20/2012 12:08:31 PM PST by SpringtoLiberty (Liberty is on the march!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mnehring

“I mean, I talk about it because I have a precise understanding of how difficult problems are to be solved,”

####

Putting aside the immense ego revealed by such a statement, only confused, “nuanced”, self-congratulatory intellectual liberaltarians like Paul, could confuse themselves into a perspective that views the murder of babies as a “difficult problem”.


5 posted on 02/20/2012 12:13:07 PM PST by EyeGuy (2012: When the Levee Breaks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SpringtoLiberty; dirtboy
He’s right on about our tendency to Nationalize every single issue.

Yet Mr. Constitution misses that one of they key platforms of Social Conservatives, abortion, is a national issue per the US Constitution- No one can be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. (paraphrased). The right to one's own existence is a fundamental platform that can't be abridged. Without that, no other rights exist. To say that is something that can be legislated away by lesser governments, ie the States, is a slap in the face of original intent.

6 posted on 02/20/2012 12:13:29 PM PST by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: mnehring
The headline is misleading. Paul is saying that a nationalized social conservative platform is a losing proposition. He is definitely in favor of a state-by-state social conservative policy.

There is definitely disagreement in the conservative community in general, and on FR as well, about whether a socially conservative agenda should be fought at the national level, the state level, or a combination of the two.

The headline incorrectly implies that Paul doesn't care to fight for any socially conservative issues at any level.

7 posted on 02/20/2012 12:14:26 PM PST by who_would_fardels_bear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mnehring

Ron Paul, DOC (Demented Old Coot)

Why haven’t the men in white coats taken him back to his rest home?


8 posted on 02/20/2012 12:15:55 PM PST by Polyxene (Out of the depths I have cried to Thee, O Lord; Lord, hear my voice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mnehring
To Dr. Ron Paul — you are an irrelevant, loose cannon. Bye, bye.
9 posted on 02/20/2012 12:17:29 PM PST by MasterGunner01 (11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mnehring

Libertarianism _could_ work if we didn’t use government to alleviate the consequences for behavior.

This would naturally lead to a socially conservative society, because living your life otherwise leads to serious consequences, many of them deadly.

However, liberals have the viewpoint that if there are consequences for choices, then those choices can’t be freely taken. This is what we see from the left - forcing those of us who live socially conservative to pay for the consequences of those who do not in order to enable them to do so.


10 posted on 02/20/2012 12:18:01 PM PST by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: who_would_fardels_bear
He is definitely in favor of a state-by-state social conservative policy.

Which isn't the Social Conservative philosophy because if one doesn't have the basic rights of one's own existence protected, there is no place for any other rights. The Constitution clearly states that one can't be deprived of life without due process of law. That is something the State's have no say in under the 10th Amendment. That is a fundamental right you own that no legislative body should be able to take away (be it federal, state, or local). It is one of those things that pure 10thers miss by not understanding Madison's writings and the 10th Amendment. There was a clear line in the 10th between the States and 'Retained by the people'. As Madison pointed out in Federalist 45, what rights were given to the States were legislative roles of governance while the 'retained by the people' were rights clearly individual rights (speech, bearing arms, etc).

11 posted on 02/20/2012 12:20:26 PM PST by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: mnehring
He has a precise understanding understanding of how these problems are to be solved? I wish he'd tell us, then, how to get rid of Libertarians.
12 posted on 02/20/2012 12:24:39 PM PST by righttackle44 (I may not be much, but I raised a United States Marine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrB

Excellent post.


13 posted on 02/20/2012 12:24:49 PM PST by EyeGuy (2012: When the Levee Breaks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: mnehring; Jim Noble; writer33; Morgana

dang if we can only win more votes than the Liberaltrians!!

oh wait...


14 posted on 02/20/2012 12:26:07 PM PST by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mnehring

Hey Paul. STFU and go back to the liberaltarian party where they think you’re a genius. Or go hang around the OWS hippies who believe you’re going to give them free pot and hookers.

You’re NOT a conservative.
You’re not a Republican.
You know very little about the constitution (regardless how much you claim you do).


15 posted on 02/20/2012 12:27:04 PM PST by Jack Burton007 (This is Jack Burton in the Pork Chop Express, and I'm talkin' to whoever's listenin' out there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mnehring; trisham; DJ MacWoW; little jeremiah; Coleus; narses; Lesforlife; EternalVigilance; ...
"I mean, I talk about it because I have a precise understanding of how difficult problems are to be solved," Paul continued. "And they're not to be at the national level. We're not supposed to nationalize these problems."

Which once again establishes that Paul IS NOT pro-life, he is pro-choice-by-state.

16 posted on 02/20/2012 12:27:34 PM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mnehring; 185JHP; 230FMJ; AKA Elena; APatientMan; Albion Wilde; Aleighanne; Alexander Rubin; ...
Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]


17 posted on 02/20/2012 12:29:06 PM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EyeGuy

I guess the libertarians are doing just fine without them.

Ron Paul definitely isn’t one of those ‘big tent’ guys, he’s a pup tent kind of guy


18 posted on 02/20/2012 12:29:42 PM PST by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: who_would_fardels_bear

Paul is flat wrong.

We need a national social conservative platform just to be able to roll back the liberal crap that has been federally imposed upon us. Even if we take Paul’s comments about issues not being national issues, there is no local solution to undo liberal federal dictates.

So Paulistinians could not be more wrong.


19 posted on 02/20/2012 12:30:40 PM PST by Notwithstanding (1998 ACU ratings: Newt=100%, Paul=88%, Santorum=84% [the last year all were in Congress])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

More like a circus tent if you see the type of people under his big top.


20 posted on 02/20/2012 12:37:02 PM PST by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson