Thanks for sticking up for us older folks. 
I am somewhat confused with this term economic liberalism. I think it is much closer to the free trade that Ron Paul envisions, rather than the managed trade which these treaties thrust upon us have produced. (Nafta, CAFTA, etc.)no it isn't.....not even close
Social Conservatism cares about minimizing scope. A small community can properly decide how to handle social issues. Economic Liberalism recognizes that if the scope of government isn't big enough, it will not succeed.
You ever notice how social conservatives talk about state rights whereas economic liberals talk about global economy? Social Conservatism fits into self determination - which is what our revolution was about. Economic Liberalism is about ending these grand experiment in freedom and ushering in an age of utopia.
Only Dennis Kucinich supporters fall for this garbage.
(Not an economist here-)Gee, I just missed that "GOP CONSERVATIVES ONLY" sign over the door.
What we, you got a mouse in your pocket?
"Visit LewRockwell.com, an outstanding and crucially important Web site I visit every day." -- Ron Paul.
"THE REVOLUTION, A MANIFESTO" ( page # 158 ), http://www.lewrockwell.com/
I am somewhat confused with this term economic liberalism. I think it is much closer to the free trade that Ron Paul envisions, rather than the managed trade which these treaties thrust upon us have produced. (Nafta, CAFTA, etc.)
What is you objection to free trade? If social conservatism fits into self-determination, then economic liberalism should also, should it not? Minimum government interference, private property, etc.
It does not sound as though you are describing economic liberalism.
Maybe if you explained it better to me, I would understand your meaning.
Sorry, I now place a higher price on my soul, than when I WAS a conservative Republican.
Sorry, I now place a higher price on my soul, than when I WAS a conservative Republican.
I thought the REAL Republicans are now mostly voting for McCain.
yes, the real republicans always vote for party over principle.
you suggest not to vote ever
We suggest to vote for Ron Paul, or candidates like Ron Paul, regardless of party.
Considering your message is at odds with ours, I would say we are pretty awesome for allowing you to stick around....what being part of the problem and all
Uh, actually, both larger and smaller governments, being basically criminals, would refuse to indict themselves.
Uh, actually, both larger and smaller governments, being basically criminals, would refuse to indict themselves.
Similar to what we have now, criminals masquerading as a governing body.
Have a cookie and pat yourself on the back for your stellar tolerance.
Is Voting an Act of Violence?
by Carl Watner
http://www.voluntaryist.com/articles/103.php
you are probably the 100th cut and paster linking that same article to me this decade. Perhaps you would have more luck using your own words....wait I forgot who I was talking to, stick with what you are currently doing.
work smarter, not harder!
:d
See, a perfect example of why originality is so vastly over rated here.yep
his argument comes down to this: a successful State requires legitimacy and that one of the easiest ways to achieve legitimacy is through widespread voter participation
I'm not sure how voting for the guy that wants to demolish the system gives the state legitimacy. To carry it even further, a write in vote for Ron Paul now counts as a non-vote. As far as the state is concerned, a vote for Ron Paul is treated by the state as non participation.
I wonder what the cut and paster can find to paste on that subject?
Thanks for your "unwitting" assistance in making my case.
":
