"stance on the world stage"

I am speaking of how others perceive Americans and our nation. During the world wars and even as recently as the Gulf War waged by Bush Sr. we had a coalition of nations and allies willing to fight side by side with the United States of America.

Out of 166 thousand troops currently in Iraq (as of February 2008) only 10 thousand (barely 6%) are not from the United States (our coalition allies).

With 5% of the world's population yet 50%+ of the world's military spending we should consider diplomacy paramount. We have extended our military spending tenfold beyond our population level and if we cannot work with our allies we will not be able to fully utilize that spending's potential.

You will never get me to agree more with you about bush and china. He has sold us into slavery to them to bankroll Iraq. Yes I defiantly agree that congress needs to drastically cut spending. If you mean stance on the world stage as in world leader in technology and achievements. Then yes I am all for it. But I do not care to make nice with the international community in a way that compromises national sovereignty and best interests. I think America needs to tell the U.N. to go to hell if they don't like us looking out for ourselves.

"anti-war"

I am no pacifist, I am not supporting a withdrawal from Afghanistan and actually would like to see an increase in our forces there.

I am however against continuing a war once we have found (according to the Bush Administration) that there were no WMDs and there was no connection between Iraq and 9/11.

We have taken out Saddam (which according to Cheney wasn't worth losing any more lives from the first Gulf War) and we've militarily won the war. Why are we still there wasting American blood and treasure?

Hell has broken loose. We can choose to prod the fires and toss more timber for them to burn or we can pull out and start humanitarian efforts (dropping food, medical and shelter supplies).

"Do you disagree with him on anything"

I disagree with Ron Paul on a lot. I used to agree with his ideas but he is too absolute and single minded in his direction (he leaves no room for a grey area).

I would not vote for Ron Paul if he was the Republican (or Democrat) nominee even if he was 10-20 points ahead of Obama or Hillary in the general election.

"attacking Republicans"

I said "neo-cons" which are not Republicans (they are a faction within Republicans).

"Neoconservatism is a political philosophy that emerged in the United States from the rejection of social liberalism"

Neocons are the "War on Liberalism"... that is the purpose of their movement.

Now condemn libtards that spit on our troops"

Sure, John Sidney McCain III should be ashamed of his political record of not supporting our troops in Iraq. Shame on him.

---

"Founding fathers would not redefine marriage."

My memory fails me again... please quote me saying homosexuality or gay marriage was a conservative ideal or an institution our forefathers would support.

I didn't. I said our forefathers (like Washington and Lincoln) were liberal.

Washington gave up his power to another leader that he was not related to without the need for a revolt.

Gondeath,

You are right on against Communism and other items.

I agree with 70% of what you are saying but it sounds like you are Ron Paul sheep. He was my 4th favorite Republican. Do you disagree with him on anything?

Ron Paul lost because he failed to understand that war has been declared on us and his only plan was to retreat, stop spying on enemy.

He would have been attacked but never admitted what he would do. Obama said he would strike back. Rangel D-NY would implement draft, and the 4th straight admin would attack mid-east then reenact a Patriot act just call it something different.

Pope John P was also against war, but when it was on, that was it. Ron Paul never let go and wasted so much time like a broken record telling us he was anti-war. That and his Republic positions were not enough because he had no plan to fight a war declared on US.

"tolerant of change"

Rather than go by example and become dictator to death or family succession he progressed and made a nation not bound by the same ways that led our forefathers to flee Europe.

Lincoln freed the slaves and spoke vehemently for minority (black) rights. For a time when slavery ran rampant this was a great change, far beyond the orthodox ways of our country to date and against the Bible's support of a master's rights over his slave.

Needless to say because he was so liberal the south wanted to conserve their ideals and broke off into the "Confederacy".

---

"Then condemn socialized medicine"

I am social conservative.

"They put Christian "

They did not tie the church to the state. One of our most prominent forefathers, Thomas Jefferson began a common used phrase in liberal arguments today; a "wall of separation between church and state".

Since then the "separation of church and state" has given greater religious freedoms to those who are not Christians while making sure that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" according to our first amendment.