Is Ron Paul Your Candidate?

Neo-Con - Paleo-Con - Liberal - Paleo-libertarian - Radical, etc, etc.

All these and more, are names given to different political beliefs…….Confused? So are many of you, out there, especially some of you Ron Paul supporters.

Although I am a Conservative both politically and socially, I have, recently, been called a Neo-Con, among many other names, by an Irate Ron Paul supporter. This guy thinks that he can throw a political affiliation catch phrase at me and he even believes that he knows what it means. I would have posted his multiple comments but I did not want to reward his stupid behavior.

I think that because I have a pro war attitude and that I fully support the troops and the military, in general, and that I believe America should remain a dominant force in the world, and that we are number one and we need to stay number one, this guy is confusing me with what he believes to be a neo-con. I do believe in government intervention when it comes to protecting its citizens, and as I said before, I support the war in Iraq and anywhere else that we need to be for our own good. If this makes me a neo-con, then either all of the known definitions of “neo-con” need to be changed or some Ron Paul supporters need to educate themselves as to what the differences are between neo-cons and conservatives.

If it was not for Ron Paul being a lunatic and blaming the USA for 9-11, his being so anti war, and actually stating that we were attacked on 9-11 because of America’s foreign policy and not because the islamofascists want to destroy our way of life, (The facts are that Jihadists hate us for our freedoms but despise our presence in the Middle East) and his support for homosexuals, and gay unions (maybe that’s who is calling me a neo-con) and maybe tone down his “Nazi-esque” attitude , he might have been a viable candidate………..No I don’t think so.

Ron Paul is not who people think he is. He’s an anti-war libritarian.in Republican’s clothing. What’s worse is he’s a nut job fringe politician who accepts money from Neo-Nazi groups. He’s the white supremacist’s candidate. Check it out here. If you are going to say “it’s guilt by association” No. He hasn’t given the money back.

“Paul states that politically sensible blacks are outnumbered “as decent people.” Citing reports that 85 percent of all black men in the District of Columbia are arrested, Paul wrote:”Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,’ I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.” Paul also wrote that although “we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.”

Here is an excerpt of Ron Paul’s voting record:

Voted NO on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism. (Sep 2001)
Voted NO on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. (Jul 2006)
Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)
Voted NO on constitutional amendment prohibiting flag desecration. (Jun 2003)
No legislation to counteract the homosexual agenda. (Sep 2007)
Protect all voluntary associations; don’t define marriage. (Oct 2007)
Voted YES on funding for alternative sentencing instead of more prisons. (Jun 2000)
Voted NO on more prosecution and sentencing for juvenile crime. (Jun 1999)
Voted NO on subjecting federal employees to random drug tests. (Sep 199
Voted NO on allowing school prayer during the War on Terror. (Nov 2001)
Voted NO on requiring states to test students. (May 2001)
Voted NO on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids. (Apr 2003)
Voted YES on reducing Marriage Tax by $399B over 10 years. (Mar 2001)
Voted NO on reforming the UN by restricting US funding. (Jun 2005)
Inappropriate to impose sanctions for persecuting Christians. (Sep 2007)
Voted NO on implementing CAFTA, Central America Free Trade. (Jul 2005)
Voted NO on implementing US-Australia Free Trade Agreement. (Jul 2004)
Voted NO on implementing US-Singapore free trade agreement. (Jul 2003)
Voted NO on implementing free trade agreement with Chile. (Jul 2003)

I think that sums it up in a “NUT” shell.
Here is a brief summary of the different political terms and what they have become to mean:

Centrist – Just what it sounds like. Someone who doesn’t have any particularly strong ideological leanings in any direction.

Conservative – In the United States, political conservatives believe two basic things are important for keeping America strong: morality and responsibility. Therefore, conservatives often support government policies that promote moral behavior - like abstinence education - and that encourage responsible behavior - like lowering taxes on people who work hard and are financially successful.
Conservatives believe that traditional morality serves as the best protection against the ills that plague society. The government should encourage policies that promote morality and discourage immorality. Personal freedom demands personal responsibility, and liberty is no excuse for irresponsible behavior.

Social conservatives believe that human life has intrinsic value.

The abortion of unborn human babies is the murder of human life and should not be allowed in a civilized/ moral society.
Euthanasia devalues human life. It encourages society to decide the “worth” of human life based on perceived enjoyment of life rather than life’s intrinsic value.
Stem cell researchers should use only adult cells.

Conservatives believe Americans should help each other, but that society should not look to the government to solve all of its problems. Conservatives see the government as big and wasteful, and government programs too often reward immoral or irresponsible behavior. Conservatives believe that the government should keep a tight budget, and government programs - if they exist at all - should help people get strong and independent so that they do not need further government assistance.

Left-libertarian – The mild definition of a left-libertarian, an anti-statist who is somewhat fearful of corporate and religious influence on public life.

Liberal – Supports economic regulation to promote social justice and takes a progressive stance toward moral or cultural issues.

Libertarian – A libertarian opposes most or all government activites. Does not favor much or any government support for either moral or economic systems.

Neoconservative – A “neocon” is more inclined than other conservatives toward vigorous government in the service of the goals of traditional morality and pro-business policies. Tends to favor a very strong foreign policy of America as well.

Paleoconservative – Paleo-Cons have many similarities to the the Greens and Nader and Buchanan. For example, Paleo-Cons are opposed to wars, they are opposed to the WTA and NAFTA and all those other international groups that infringe on America’s national sovereignty. Paleo-Cons also oppose companies sending their factories abroad, we want to also close the borders due to overpopulation/pollution/lack of resources, lack of jobs, immigrants lowering the wages, and integration problems. Paleo-cons also reject Zionism, reject Israel, and oppose the Israeli/Zionist control of the media, government, and influencial social organizations. Paleo-cons reject the Isaeli genocide of Arabs and support the rights of Arab/Muslim nations to exist free of foreign intervention.

Paleo-libertarian – Similar to other libertarians except for oppostion to mass immigration, and shares the paleocon appreciation of the South.

Radical – Critical of bouregois morality and strongly opposed to capitalism and willing to use state power to achieve desired ends.

Third-way – More supportive of foreign intervention than liberals and less supportive of economic regulation, coupled with more-or-less progressive social views. “Third-way” is to liberal what neoconservative is to conservative.

Now that this was said……You decide!