Ron Paul, the only anti-war Republican candidate, won the text message poll with 33% (about 1/3) of the vote...Sean Hannity got upset and said it must be "the Paulites redialing", however all sources confirm that the text message voting system only allows you to vote once.... Source - http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,295969,00.html Watch Ron Paul in the debates - http://youtube.com/watch?v=8BB3NrSpRGE
Just checked out the texts message voting on the Fox News Debate, you could vote as often as you wanted, it cost .25 cents a vote, so you could vote as often as you could afford, so big deal,
No you couldn't, it would only allow you to vote once....it would give you a message saying you can only vote once http://youtube.com/watch?v=eUxQadgSkoA
Darn rich liberals funded by George Soros and Company buying all the liberals extra free phones.. I mean, even though Ron Paul is a Constitutionalist, the liberals are still behind it somehow. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! - N
What? The results are not really surprising...1/3 of Republicans are against the war and Ron Paul got 1/3 of the votes...it all makes perfect sense...70% of Americans are against the war...
It would be awesome if Ron Paul got the nomination. Sure, this poll is unscientific, but even if they cheated, it shows that Paul supporters are enthusiastic!
Intresting, not the information I got from, but still not a accurate poll, it is self selected, and there was no control, it would show who was watching the debate, and that is all, it would have no bearing as to the actual electorate, I watched the debate, but I didn't vote, and none of the candidates in the debate would receive my support as of know, I have a candidate that I do support but he wasn't their, and the effect is that I don't take part in polls like this because they can be flooded, and the Paulies are on a mission, and they would make a effort to vote in the poll.
I will say that I do listen to Sean occasionally, and I do not understand his problem with Paul. I do not think he has thoroughly studied Paul's positions. I would vote for Paul, if he is nominated. All that said I do not agree with his policy on Iraq, because I am still convinced that Iraq is intrinsically linked with the War on Terror. Paul's position on Iraq alone guarantees he will most likely not be nominated.
I'm switching from independent to republican so I can vote for Paul in the primaries. BTW, I thought you love our Constitution, Buffalo? - N
Yes, I should say so. Because we both know that any leftist support of Paul has absolutely nothing to do anything other than one thing. He opposes our presence in Iraq. If he did not oppose this, you know he would be branded the most extreme righty out there.
Wait, whats your reason for not agreeing with Ron Paul's policy on Iraq? Ron Paul to me seems like a classical Republican, you know before the Bushes, smaller government, less regulation, lower taxes, building a strong national defense, this use to be what conservativism was all about...
Well, hey, the friend of my enemy, err, the enemy of my enemy is.. um.. won't get fooled again! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! - N
On your question, Paul's position at present is that we should not be in Iraq. Though it is true that he voiced opposition from the start, I think he is missing a bigger picture. I do agree with his basic anti-war stance and am still of the belief that most people, irrespective of political flavor, if given the choice, would always choose peace over war. However, sometimes we have to do things we may not like and I just believe Iraq is one of those things. That said, I also believe that to prepare for peace you must also prepare for war. Humanity simply is not ready to allow differences to coexist, at least not until we can all find common ground on right and wrong. Yet, I still am very conflicted about Iraq. My faith and my worldview are at odds with this. As to your point, you have hit it right on the head. I would caution that these principles are still aligned with conservatives, libertarian-conservatives and classical liberals. It is the Conservative Party (by that I mean the elected officials) that have lost sight of these facts, not the everyday rank and file. Incidently, Paul falls more under the classical liberal type than classical republican. Though the lines are a bit blurred, you may be more correct than I.
Well can you please clarify this? Conservativism is all about smaller government, less government involvement, less regulation, lower taxes, a strong national defense, this is all the things Ron Paul stands for. For instance Ron Paul has the most conservative record in congress (and also the most consistent). He's pro-life, pro guns, pro-constitution, against medicare, against all socialist ideals, etc...Liberals are for bigger government, higher taxes, more regulation, a defense coming second to other things, a more type of socialist society where the government gets directly involved in people's lives and behavior, provides welfare and things like that for people, I don't understand what is "liberal" about Ron Paul at all... As for the war, it was Woodrow Wilson (a liberal Democrat) who proposed that we go around the world and spread Democracy everywhere through the use of force. Liberals were always for more government involvement and intervention which is why Woodrow Wilson wanted the US government to be intervening everywhere to "ensure democracy", this was the liberal democratic position, a type of socialist ideal... It was Ronald Reagan, Mr.Conservative who withdrew troops and pulled out of Lebanon saying that middle eastern politics were too irrational...no one was calling him "liberal" for doing that, his position is similar to Ron Paul's...also Ronald Reagan praised Ron Paul innumerable times for his conservative ideals when he was in office.... "Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a strong national defense" - Ronald Reagan
The reason you are confused is because the left has hijacked the word liberal and turned into a nasty word. Classical liberal means all the things you described to be the type of conservative Paul is, with one lone exception and that is that a classical liberal would rather there be almost no government other than defense. I think Paul knows this and for the health of his career he is not going to end many of the government programs we already have in place. That said, probably most of the time anyone wants to reduce government programs, their ultimate end is eliminating the program altogether. Note I said most of the time. There are always exceptions. But your greatest confusion is the bastardization of the word liberal, and both media, right and left, has helped perpetuate this bastardization. BTW: I would argue your contention of Wilson being a liberal democrat on two grounds. First, what the meaning of true liberalism is and the manner in which (again) it has benn bastardized. Second if I accpet the modern reference of liberal and apply liberal democrat to Wilson, then again this is not accurate consider those coined as liberal democrat today and compare to Wilson.
