It is not that Paul does not sound conservative, he sure does. But the outworking of his actual plans are more toward liberal than conservative.
Withdrawing all troops from foreign interests, even to the ludicrous statement that he would not have sent our troops to combat Hitler, is in fact much more a liberal statment than a conservative statement.
Not so. Spending money we do not have is not "conservative." Nor is fighting undeclared wars. The big government idea that the military can be ordered around unilaterally by the President, like he is some kind of emperor, without the consent of the people through Congress, is a fascist, socialist, progressive and LIBERAL idea.
Oh, and we used to call the Department of Defense the "War Department" and we did that on purpose. That WAS its purpose before liberals hijacked America and held it hostage for over half a century.
Right. War department. As in "To fight declared wars." Now it is more innocuous..."defense."
His stance on drugs is MORE liberal than Clinton or Obama.
Its not "more liberal." Its more constitutional.
The only way he can go back to the gold standard is to gut the military and business, that ends up a more liberal stance than would appear from his rhetoric. It would also end up tossing most American citizens into poverty, and in the end we would become more dependent on government than less.
No it wouldn't. It would stabilize our economy. And he has stated that these would not be immediate actions.
He has some well known positions on minorities (and this I believe, in part, drives his isolationist platform) that is far more liberal than anyone else currently running. In this regard, he is akin to Senator Robert Byrd and other old-school Democrats who consistently voted against civil rights. He spoke out against and voted against the Civil Rights Act.
He is a vehement anti-racist. He is against any legislation that give more rights to one group than another. He is right on that.
Paul is the most outspoken of any republican when it comes to defense of minorities and the weak. He has for the last ten years, continually decried the injustice in our court systems. His pleas have fell on deaf ears.
He offers no protections for those who are sexually harrassed in the workplace, rights guarenteed by the Constitution he claims to hold.
The Constitution does not guarantee your rights, on my property. You cannot come into my house and demand the right to free speech. The Constitution only forbids the GOVERNMENT from abridging your rights.
He supports non-violent tax protest (Isn't the Occupy movement of that same nature?)
Uh, so?
He has voted pro-prostitution (let everyone do whatever they like).
You mean he has voted for freedom. Yep. He does not believe the federal government should exercise power not enumerated in the Constitution. He believes in the 10th amendment, no doubt.
He supports gay marriage (let everyone do whatever they like).
He is AGAINST the government recognition or participation in ANY marriage. He believes it is a church issue, that the government should not have part in. I agree; if they want to call themselves "married" or think that they are magical unicorns, they can believe whatever they wish. But under Paul's small government idea, I am NOT forced to recognize it. That is NOT the liberal position (which says the Government should recognize and authenticate same-sex marriage).
He supports stem cell research, and has voted to fund it and he feels that the federal government ought have no say in fetal stem cell issues.
He supports adult stem cell research (I don't know any conservatives who are against that...), and believes the government has no say in fetal stem cell issues that arise from natural causes...however, he has repeatedly stated that he is against growing and harvesting embryos.
So, tell me, you are against transplants?
He is anti-death penalty.
The FEDERAL death penalty. And conservatives have not always agreed on this issue. There are plenty of Christian social conservatives who have always rejected the death penalty.
He is supported by "Friends of the Earth" a radical liberal anti-enegry environmental group.
So? Romney is supported by gangsters and casino owners. Gingrich is supported by questionable people. Support for someone does not equate to a position.
Admittedly, in some areas he is truly conservative, fiscal policy, his stance on churches and their role in society, and his view (mostly) of the Constitution, but some of his libertarian stances make him the true un-electable weirdo that he really is.
Actually, in a general election, he is the MOST electable. He would trounce Obama, due to independents, and anti-war democrats...
