I get a kick out of some of these so called Conservatives like zyphlin worship at the altar of Ron Paul......The man will do anything for publicity as I said earlier go on that socialist Rachel Maddoe's program on MSNBC......The only thing he can win is that seat from Texas otherwise he is a loser......I get so tired of hearing them worship this loser and now you got the son who is probably a bigger loser.........
Please my wannabe Conservative friends give it up or you will make a fool of yourselves like you did in 2008...........
Navy, this is why no one takes a lot of what you say seriously, because you don't actually make points you just spout whatever comes to mind based on an immediate reaction. Within 5 minutes I could find you a multitude of threads where I've stated my disagreement with Paul, and some of his biggest fans, and why I think he will never, ever, win anything on a national scale and was doomed from the beginning for a variety of factors.
That said...
I'm not so blind in my ideology that I define "Conservatism" as whatever makes the most sense when rationalized against the actions of those with (R)'s next to their names today. Paul is a staunch conservative, though at times with far to an extreme and unpragmatic approach to be effective. He did have a number of good messages.
Yes, truly the loser of conservatism, only able to win a seat in one of the most conservative states in the union...he must really be a socialist!
Continue to lambast others as "So Called" and "wannabe" conservatives Navy. Please, continue to do so as you push for the Nanny State of the government telling individuals how to run their lives. Please, continue to do so as you justify taking more and more money from China and others as we drive ourselves in debt trying to wage a traditional war vs an untraditional enemy and nation build two separate countries. Please, continue to do so as you continue to support ignoring and tearing up portions of the constitution because its convenient to you while hypocritically are so aggressive when it comes to the 2nd amendment, making it obvious you don't care about the constitution but only the parts you like. Please, continue doing all these things Navy and then calling people who DARE to disagree with those notions your "left wing friend" or "wannabe conservatives" because you're not convincing anyone, you're not causing people to stand up and cheer and go "you know that Navy's right", you're just making people who actually take the time to read peoples posts and not respond on whatever immediate thing being said as if its in its own little bubble laugh at the stupidity of the notion.
There is no tenet nor principle of conservatism that says one must run around yelling "SOCIALIST!" five times fast about anyone and everyone you disagree with. There is no tenet nor principle of conservatism that says that simply because someone with a (R) next to their name does something its good and someone with a (D) next to it is bad. There is no tenet nor principle of conservatism that says one can not look at previous history, realize and own up to mistakes, and attempt to not make them in the future...on the contrary, that's the very meaning of personal accountability and responsibility. There is no tenet nor principle of conservatism that says you must believe Barack Obama is a muslim, ignorantly and bigotedly try to imply he's Kenyan through backhanded or straight forward ways, or suggest that he's the modern Hitler. There is no tenet nor principle of conservatism that says if you wave the magical "T" word around that suddenly you can ignore the foundations of conservative ideology such as fiscal responsibility, small government, and limited government intrusion.
You like to talk about people being wannabe conservatives often, yet you never back it up save for your same tired continual rhetoric that boils down to nothing but "You don't do it as I do it so you're not".
You are the definitive neo-con, in every sense of the word. Now, I don't agree with Dana, that somehow this is a vile beast that is wholey non-conservative. I simply call you "My left wing friend" cause I'm tired of your bull**** calling me and others that when, by using your standard, you would be it too. You are a conservative, greatly social conservative, quasi when it comes to military issues, and only when it benefits you for fiscal and governmental issues. You are so socially conservative that you don't give a care if you have to use the government, and trample upon CONSERVATIVE government principle, to force people into that social norm. You believe in a strong, well funded military, but are hugely into nation building and constant intervention. You are for fiscal conservatism, when it comes to tax cuts or welfare programs...unless your side pushes the program in which case you don't mind...but have no care if we turn around and spend 3 times that amount on war efforts, thus having the same affect with less direct benefit to our citizens. You want a small government that's out of your life, when it comes to social services, yet continually and routinely want every segment of security to be expanded, in size, cost, and ability to intervene in our lives...or more importantly, the lives of people you feel deserve to be prejudiced against.
You are a neo-con, in every single sense of the word. I disagree with Dana, that doesn't make you a conservative. You are one, just a very strangely twisted one in some cases. You are the mirror image in many ways to the libertarian minded conservative. Yet those individuals, also, are conservatives. As are the paleo-conservatives.
I'm tired of this idiotic notion of there being a "true" conservative, and especially tired of libertarians telling people continually how somehow they're the "true" conservative. The closest to the claim is a paleo-conservative, and even that varies. Conservatism is a very, very broad ideology that has enough branches that it is possible for people to follow portions and ignore others. The issue however....be it with Libertarians arguing that abortion at the state level should still be kept legal, or neo-cons arguing that pre-emptive intervention and nation building is correct, to the religious right arguing that we need to constitutionally ban gay marriage, to even paleo-conservatives trying to moderate various positions more to the middle....is each individual ideology taking something that is a bit off from traditional conservatism and trying to lecture everyone else about how "no no no, you are doing it 100% wrong and MY way is the only way that a REAL conservative can do it now". Here's the dirty secret...I dare say every single various faction of conservatives, if you find one that can actually articulate that factions ideology well instead of just act like a mindless parrot, can probably justify their view through conservatism in a way that if you are intellectually honest you could at least vaguely see, if not agree with.
Going back to the Tea Parties....
As I've stated in another thread, if they can keep the social issues to a minimum, such as immigration, then it will be a good thing. The Tea Parties had begun to bring Fiscal and Governmental conservatism BACK to the forefront and seems to have been starting to rebalanced the table from the past 8 years when it has been the somewhat twisted Neo-Conservative view of "Defense" and social issues as the two giants in the room with the other two towards the back. If it brings BALANCE back to the Republicans it will be a good thing.
However, if the big social conservatives get control and start interjecting too much of that into it then the chance for balance is going to be lost. Its moving that direction but not there yet.
That said, this is a loose knit nation wide "movement" that, frankly, is less truly organized in ideology and goals than the "I'm with CoCo" movement. One could go to a tea party focusing almost singularly on fiscal responsibility while another is far more social focused while yet another may be simply anti-establishment in feeling. As a movement grows the "Core" of that movement expands as do those on the edges of it, and more variety enters in diluting the original goals and thoughts of said movement. This is especially true when there is no true leadership.
This is why the entire notion of "Tea Party" candidates is nothing but a buzz word, an attempt at politicians to harness citizen outrage and action to their best benefit. Brown was a supposed "Tea Party" Candidate yet he'd be viewed likely far differently in a place like Texas or Alabama.
Its also why Sarah Palin attempting to "lead" the movement bothers me, as she has shown her focus and views to be far less balanced and far from the original intent and focus of the Tea Parties and I truly wonder, if she attempted to "lead" it if she would run with the Tea Parties original message or shape the Tea Parties into HER message. Such a movement likely will never be able to have a true "leader" because frankly it is FAR too diverse and far to segmented from one group to another to truly have a definitive leader. One can simply look at the difference between my experiences with the Tea Parties and Navy's to see that to imply or suggest that there is some kind of extremely large nation wide agenda and unity is ludicrous. At most the few ties that bind is low taxes, no public health care, and attempting to return to a fiscally responsible government...and even that last one is changing from an overall message of responsibility to a neo-con "Responsible unless we say the T word" message in some tea parties.