0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
The republicans have no choice but to discredit Ron Paul and label him a "liberal". That's because republicans are highjacking the word conservative the same as democrats highjacked the word "liberal". Reps are not conservative anymore than Dem's are really liberal, and liberal used to be associated with the word conservative before people started highjacking terms and changing them around. Conservative does not mean you go to war all the time and butt in and take over, and liberal does not mean progressive socialism. Ron Paul has pointed this out a couple times, but seems neither the Dem's or reps want to hear it, they both are threatened under Paul's idea of a smaller more efficient and less corrupt government. That's my take on it. Politics is a word game, has been since before I was born, the closest thing you'll get to conservative would be a true libertarian in my view, less intrusive government means less involvement in foreign wars as well, hell the real reason we will go to war with Iran is because they, like some others, are talking about changing their currency...it's probably just that simple. Money is the root of all of it, and nobody is saying that Ron Paul has no flaws, everyone does, it's just he is the closest thing we need, and the fix to this mess ain't real popular, it means people will do without for a stretch. I don't know why people are so afraid of Ron Paul, he would at least not interfere with the public or private affairs of people and get involved much less at the executive level of passing things. That's sounds good right now.
nw_hunter, as I said in my post, I am not attacking RP's ideas. I do agree with many of them. If you'll re-read, I was talking about how ineffective I believe he would be. As for his support, I don't see how it can be a result of his charisma, since he has little or none. The support is for his ideas.
