[Jim Noble]

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

[dirtboy]

"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.

[SpringtoLiberty]

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.

[EyeGuy]

“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”.

[who_would_fardels_bear]

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.

[Polyxene]

Ron Paul, DOC (Demented Old Coot)

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

[MasterGunner01]

To Dr. Ron Paul — you are an irrelevant, loose cannon. Bye, bye.

[MrB]

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.

[righttackle44]

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.

[GeronL]

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

oh wait...

[Jack Burton007]

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).

[wagglebee]

"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.

[wagglebee]

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 ]

[pallis]

Just as a practical note, Republicans can’t win without them. As a political argument, Paul might as well be saying there is no reason to nationalize debates about the right to life, or property rights. Never mind free speech or the 2nd Amendment, all those things social conservatives think are important. Ron Paul is a nuisance.

[DJ MacWoW]

FR Needs New Servers
Please Donate Toward The Purchase And Keep FR Up And Running!

Click The Servers To Donate

[Antoninus]

How anyone can stomach Ron Paul is beyond me. At the end of his article, he slips a bit into the liberaltarian vernacular:

"Well, I don't see how that's possible," said Paul. "And this whole idea about that talking about the social issues and who is going to pay for birth control pills, I'm worried about undermining our civil liberties, the constant wars going on, the debt of $16 trillion and they are worried about birth control pills and here he wants to, you know, control people's social lives. At the same time, he voted for Planned Parenthood."

See? So apparently the federal government forcing Catholic institutions to pay for birth control is not a big deal for Ron Paul. It equals "controlling people's social lives". He also flat-out lies, saying that Rick Santorum "voted for Planned Parenthood." As if PP isn't one of Santorum's biggest enemies.

[Utmost Certainty]

Eh, he’s right. Nationalizing social issues is a loser position. That stuff needs to be dealt with on a local level—the Feds shouldn’t be having a role in any of this. It shouldn’t even be up for discussion as a national issue.

I also don’t want to be talking about BIRTH CONTROL as a central issue, when it’s little more than a petty distraction from far bigger problems like crippling debt and creeping socialism.

[Mariner]

I don’t agree with Ron Paul on much, but I agree with him on this and on cutting $1tril the first year.

[RasterMaster]

Another BIG TENT moderate.....when the GOP surrenders the social issues, they’ve given up much of their platform and the distinctions between our choices is blurred. Run on socially conservative issues and people turn out to vote. When both parties run on the DUmocrat platform, people stay home and the Commiecrats win.

[redgolum]

Interesting tactic.

Give up and smile.

Of course, if the social conservatives stay home, or vote Dem, you get to blame them. If they vote, and you lose, you get to blame them. If they vote, and you win, you say it was because of the mussy brainless middle that made you win.

Eventually, we will go somewhere else. The GOP has the social conservatives on a plantation just like the DNC does with minorities. If either group leaves, or rather when they do, we are in for some interesting times.

Assuming we keep having elections that mean anything, which at this stage of our decay I wouldn't bet on to many more. No matter who wins.