RonPaul, all for homosexuals and thus is NOT a conservative.
And that’s just one reason out of many.
Bingo!
The gay rhetoric doesn't hold up for most when it comes to voting on GIGANTIC GOVERNMENT/ECONOMIC/SPENDING ISSUES.
Ron would win over many voters if he just stood up at one of these so-called debates and said with a quirky grin:
"No I don't look like him or him or her..I am not any where near as pretty..Agreed! But someday when you suddenly realize you are getting pretty much the same old same out of Washington; flip flopping between parties, you might give someone like me a chance. Determination I have, what I say is what you get. And as you can see, I am still here: so I can't be all that ugly to everyone[winks]
Guaranteed Replay.
[rough version]
And that’s just one reason out of many.
That is one of the most ill-informed conclusions I have ever read. Ron Paul does not view it as the Federal Governement's place to dictate either morality or control personal behavior. I agree with this view. I am adamantly opposed to homosexuality, but I don't think it is the place of a Federal Government to say such. At the state level - Great, I'm all for it.
True Constitutional Conservatism, to me, is largely libertarian: less government, more freedoms. I tend to agree with Paul in this philosophy. I don't believe Paul wants to legalize drugs or prostitution or immoral behavior for the sake of allowing them to proliferate within our society. He wants the government the hell out of these decisions, thereby allowing states, communities and families to determine the correct course of action for themselves. What is wrong with that?
I am hanging out in Newt's corner, for now. I feel that Ron Paul has the best chance of resolving our fiscal nightmare. I also tend to grow a bit more libertarian (or Constitutionally Conservative) as I grow older. To me, Constitutional Conservatism is, by nature, largely Libertarian. Perhaps we all need to remember that.