Regardless, I don't understand why despite all of the genuine points I made against this guy, people just place a bunch of negative ratings on these posts without justification. I haven't negged a single post here, because I support discourse on the topic rather than try to hide the parts I don't like. So that's the end of my tirade. I'd rather learn about things in earnest than preach to these dimwits (not you). I appreciate your correction, and I'm done with this site.
You're right. I threw away the meaning of neoconservatism in that series of posts just to further bash Ron Paul, because I can't stand all the jizz flying around here about this guy. I do know that neoconservatives aren't tough on immigration, since businesses depend on them, but they don't give a sh*t about Latinos just the same. He shares a few neocon sentiments, but for the most part, he is indeed his very own precious kind of nut. I apologize for the neocon part.
His position on deportation of illegals is murky too. He sometimes says that widespread deportation is unrealistic yet he also says that he would actively deport all people who overstay their visas or break some other immigration law.
As for abortion, your view of what type of abortion is murder is subjective and while I agree with you on the practicality of when to get an abortion, it should not be our right to handle how someone else handles their body if they are mentally able.
businesses right now. The only reason he opposes this is because he thinks only voluntary action on the businesses' part would accomplish anything. His justification had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the U.S. DOES NOT want to fund genocide. It's like he doesn't realize that neoclassical economics isn't the end-all solution to all worldly problems.
Not a neocon? He proposed a constitutional amendment to eliminate birthright citizenship (H.J. Res 42). Now why would Ron Paul want to throw away a constitutional system that's worked for over 200 years? Additionally, he gave the only nay vote on H.R. 180, which would have restricted Congress from signing contracts with businesses that fund the destabilizing militia in Darfur. In fact, the legislation would have empowered states by authorizing them to divest from contracts they hold with these
There are 1100 federal statutes that use the term "marriage" so it is far too ingrained in U.S. legislation to leave it up to the states. That's my view, at least. You're free to disagree, but I don't think Ron Paul really cares for same-sex marriage considering his idea that there's a war on religion.
All I ask is that people avoid trusting seemingly nice guys like Ron Paul and Obama simply because of their appearance. Checking their actual views and voting records is essential.
There are 1100 federal statutes that use the term "marriage" so it is far too ingrained in U.S. legislation to leave it up to the states. That's my view, at least. You're free to disagree, but I don't think Ron Paul really cares for same-sex marriage considering his idea that there's a war on religion.
I will amend one thing I said: neocons don't really prefer leaving same-sex marriage to the states, since "neocon" is basically another word for Bush yes-men among the dwindling 20% remaining. Neoconservatives would federally ban same-sex marriage outright, whereas social conservatives would leave the issue to the states. This is one more socially progressive issue that should transcend individual states, like civil rights for blacks.
I didn't sh*t all over Ron Paul because he's running as a Republican. You just assumed I did because, based on your strawman, you probably don't have an actual argument. Pretty pathetic ad hominem there.
I stated that he has a typical neoconservative view about abortion and same-sex marriage, and that's not incorrect. This is where he diverges from libertarians. When CaribDevist tried to correct you on that note, you went on with irrelevant blather about nebulous polarization. You're the one dragging emphasis to that, not me.
Way to pull a strawman out of your ass. I never argued that everyone who disagrees with me is "on the right". I stated a generalization of attacks on the left wing by the right wing. Does that mean everyone does it? No. That's why it's called a generalization; you're supposed to lose meaning to an extent and assume that your audience has the capacity to make inferences.
Want to know how many times the Constitution actually mentions "God"? Hint: It's an integer in between -1 and 1.
This guy thinks that there's a war against religion. Is he batsh*t insane? Hell yes. Should you vote for him? No. Does it matter? Not really, he's not going to get the nomination anyway.
To put it shortly: WRONG.
YTMND is for art, not advertisement. We have the front page for that.
Also, your crazy f*ck candidate wants to privatize everything and destroy all income taxes. The right likes to criticize the left on all sorts of things like their environmental policies because they ravage the U.S. infrastructure, but then they 180 and support guys like Ron Paul. This guy has the typical neocon view of leaving abortion and same-sex marriage to the states. He thinks the Constitution is replete with references to God.
Also, the oncoming plethora of spoiler ytmnds will suck compared to Snape Kills Dumbledore. Copycats suck, so if you want to do one of these, it better be creative.
ab56v2's recent comments: