Which Republican Candidate Is More Conservative?

[mrjarrell]

That's the question they and their supporters will be asking over the next year. As Laurence Vance at the FFF points out, tho, it really doesn't matter in the long wrong. Conservatives are all about big government, regulation and all the things their supporters supposedly abhor. Just like their buddies across the aisle. It's time to make a serious change. Especially, this go around. More of the same old business as usual will destroy us, and that's all the current crop, except for 2, is offering.

Which Republican Candidate Is More Conservative? by Laurence M. Vance
[FONT=Arial,Geneva,sans-serif][/FONT]

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I don’t recall Democratic candidates in the last election disputing over who was “more liberal” or “the most liberal.”

Ummm, was Larry in a cave or something???

 

[rambone]

The worst part of the nanny state that conservatives support is the war on drugs.

Conservatives support the police state.

Conservatives support the warfare state.

There is sure to be someone who comes along and argues that Bush wasn't a real conservative and yada yada yada. I get that.

But these points above are now entrenched in conservative culture. I've been called a "bleeding heart" for criticizing expansion of policing powers. Conservatives worship Order. They seem to have become blinded to the idea that the militant police state could ever be used against them.

 

[firehawk1]

Who the most conservative candidate is really irrelavent. The important question should be, who is the candidate who meets, or is closest to my/your/our wishes/desires AND is electable.

Personally, I would like to see George Washington elected in 2012. I'm voting my conscious. He's heads above any of the other contenders, and most likely stands as much a chance of being elected as some actually running.

 

[Garb]

Who the most conservative candidate is really irrelavent. The important question should be, who is the candidate who meets, or is closest to my/your/our wishes/desires AND is electable.

Personally, I would like to see George Washington elected in 2012. I'm voting my conscious. He's heads above any of the other contenders, and most likely stands as much a chance of being elected as some actually running.

Or you could vote for whatever scumbag wins the Republican nomination, in hopes that the Democratic scumbag won't win the presidency. I'm sure you can come up with some reasons that your scumbag is better than their scumbag.

 

[GeneralCarver]

Ron Paul is. He is the true conservative of any candidate up there. Vote for Ron Paul. Anyone else up there from the GOP who gets in is just going to keep expanding big government, the war on terror, foreign wars, etc. etc.

A good source for Ron Paul info to see his views, speeches, debates etc....
http://www.dailypaul.com/

 

[indykid]

Just a seemingly dumb question, wouldn't Ron Paul be better served running as a libertarian?

 

[Expat]

Just a seemingly dumb question, wouldn't Ron Paul be better served running as a libertarian?

Except statistically there really aren't many libertarians. I suspect that the libertarian INGO members make up most of them. So there isn't enough of them to get him elected dog catcher much less POTUS.

 

[Garb]

So there isn't enough of them to get him elected dog catcher much less POTUS.

You watch Fox News don't you?

 

[firehawk1]

Or you could vote for whatever scumbag wins the Republican nomination, in hopes that the Democratic scumbag won't win the presidency. I'm sure you can come up with some reasons that your scumbag is better than their scumbag.

ANY of the Republican "scumbags" as you call them is a MAJOR improvement over the current occupant of the White House. Some not who I want, but better.

The most urgent task HAS to be to get Obama out of office. While he is an idiot, he is a useful idiot to some rather shady VERY dangerous people. Their ability to make this useful idiot dance on a string for them has to end. And yes I know there are dangerous people on both sides. If this "man" is allowed to destroy the US economy (as he is doing faster, than ANYONE in US history, and on purpose I might add) the other problems (see below) become a moot point anyway. If we are relegated to living hand to mouth very few if any will care the least bit about being searched to get on a damn airplane, etc... Priorities man, priorities.

We need to get past the idea that the TSA, Patriot Act, the "government police state", The War on Drugs, etc... is going away anytime soon. Isn't going to happen even if Ron Paul is elected. Sorry if I burst anyone's bubble. If anyone thinks it will, please explain how.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Vote for me

 

[Lead Head]

It doesn't matter to me at this point. I will vote for whoever runs against the marxist/communist/socialist, whatever in the hell he is.

Just a game of chess. Pawns we are not. Knights we may be called. Somehow I feel rooked.

 

[Darral27]

I am with you firehawk. Any republican would be much better than what we have right now. I watched the latest GOP debate and did not much care for any of the options other than Ron Paul. I will be the first to say he has some very "fringe" ideas but we need something very drastic and very soon. We could use 4 to 8 years of to heck with everybody else. Other than Ron Paul I would like to learn more about Christie if he comes into the race. I like his get it done attitude I have seen so far.

 

[rambone]

We need to get past the idea that the TSA, Patriot Act, the "government police state", The War on Drugs, etc... is going away anytime soon. Isn't going to happen even if Ron Paul is elected. Sorry if I burst anyone's bubble. If anyone thinks it will, please explain how.

Its like talking about the National Debt. Nobody can make it disappear in one term. The question is, do you want it to become bigger or smaller under the next president. Ron Paul is the only guy in the debate that even seems remotely interested in shrinking/abolishing the the things you mentioned.

 

[firehawk1]

Its like talking about the National Debt. Nobody can make it disappear in one term. The question is, do you want it to become bigger or smaller under the next president. Ron Paul is the only guy in the debate that even seems remotely interested in shrinking/abolishing the the things you mentioned.

No matter how much I wish it otherwise... It will become bigger no matter who is in office. There are simply too many who depend on government handouts to survive. Try to take them away, and there will be rioting in the streets. What does everyone think LBJ's Great Society was all about? He knew we could not rid society of poverty simply because there are lazy unmotivated people. Handing them money wasn't going to change that, but he knew something had to be done to try to stop the violence.

We abolished slavery... well sort of. Too many Americans now are slaves to the government instead of some plantation owner. Most of them educated in the government schools (if they even went) are too ignorant to even realize it. Most don't even care as long as the checks keep coming.

Sometimes I think you all misread me as far as Ron Paul is concerned. I agree with the majority of his take on the pressing issues we face. The media has made him out to be a kook (wrongly of course) and has sold that to many potential voters. He is in the same league as Dan Quayle and Sara Palin. The media is WAY too good at shaping public opinion, and **** poor at investigating and reporting.

I could end up voting for Paul in the primary, and if he wins the nomination I would vote for him in the general. He is a L O N G shot though IMO. BUT..... I WILL support/vote for the one that wins the Republican nomination. Obama HAS to go, and for me THAT is the first priority.

 

[88GT]

That's the question they and their supporters will be asking over the next year. As Laurence Vance at the FFF points out, tho, it really doesn't matter in the long wrong. Conservatives are all about big government, regulation and all the things their supporters supposedly abhor. Just like their buddies across the aisle. It's time to make a serious change. Especially, this go around. More of the same old business as usual will destroy us, and that's all the current crop, except for 2, is offering.

Which Republican Candidate Is More Conservative? by Laurence M. Vance
[FONT=Arial,Geneva,sans-serif][/FONT]

I've never met a conservative that supported big government.

 

[rambone]

Two thumbs up. Way up.

I could end up voting for Paul in the primary, and if he wins the nomination I would vote for him in the general.

 

[rambone]

I've never met a conservative that supported big government.

Is it safe to say that the War on Drugs is a liberal policy then?

 

[88GT]

Is it safe to say that the War on Drugs is a liberal policy then?

It's a statist policy to be sure. But that has nothing to do with my point.

 

[jsgolfman]

Your point being none of the candidates is a conservative?