Doesn't a big government to take care of socially centrist concerns interfere with conservative economics?
Here are a few of the things that I don't support that social conservatives usually does: 1) Constitutional amendment banning abortion 2) Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage 3) Federal ban on stem cell research 4) the EU 5) Teaching evolution over creationism in schools 6) Decriminalizing marijuana Now the social policies that I oppose that the Dems support: 1) welfare 2) socialized health care 3) the department of education 4) Privatize Social Security (since abolishing it is almost impossible) 5) I support internationalism unless it interferes with our goals 6) illegal immigration rights 7) most subsidies I'm not socially liberal by any means but I am more centrist than many in the GOP, and as you can see I generally oppose those programs that increase the size and strength of the federal government. Especially if they interfere with with the economy.
id say only one of those things should carry considerable weight in determining who to vote for. btw, what the hell does a prez have to do with in-state tuition?
Ron Paul doesn't describe himself as an isolationist, but he realizes that there are plenty of domestic issues to deal with. The US doesn't need to have a presence everywhere to be powerful, and it can be argued that having a presence around the world is counterproductive (and costly). When the US has a presence around the world, its akin to trying to control the freedom of other countries. We really have plenty to worry about in this country. The US has very low approval ratings around the world. We need to refocus and concentrate on making our country the best it can be.
I was considering voting democrat in this election, but every one of them is committed to universal health care. That's a deal breaker for me...
Well, I'm not a single-issue guy. The republicans have proven themselves incompetent on foreign policy, use of the military, immigration, social security reform, balanced budgets, the national debt, tax breaks for the super-rich, and have produced scandal after scandal.
Wait a sec, I'm confused. You're saying that you don't support decriminalizing weed, but also that a social conservative usually does support that? Seems backwards. Same thing with teaching evolution. I'd think that a social conservative would not support teaching evolution over creationism. Ron Paul is the only candidate at this point that doesn't make me want to gag. In fact, he's the only one that's even close to being aligned with me ideologically. The rest of the potential candidates are pandering baby-kissers with no real ideas or leadership qualities. It's quite depressing. This would be a prime time for the Democrats to make a run. But they still can't produce a decent candidate. Bill Richardson would have been a good choice, but the democrats seem to be hell-bent on blowing this election, so he's out. It was the same situation in 2004. They were tasked with simply finding someone who wasn't as big of a douchebag as Bush, and they failed miserably at that. It's a sad state of affairs, really. The lack of a decent candidate somewhat dampens the elation of finally getting rid of the imbecile.:nope:
