A Tale of Two Rights by the Southern Avenger

This video is a fairytale.

If you dislike "making the world safe for democracy", why do you care about "defeating the Soviet empire"?

I actually argue that the Soviet Union would have self-destructed and that the Cold War was a complete waste of resources. The Cold War was a New Right invention that the Old Right completely opposed.

Taxes? Uh, not at all. Paleos would always cut taxes because the government wouldn't be doing such big things like MAKING WAR, while the Neos just say they will reduce taxes, reduce them for their base in the super rich and "delusional that they will become super rich" in the upper middle class, and meanwhile squeeze the middle class into poverty with taxes.
Abortion you are right, Judges possibly, but I would be surprised if they came out the same.

When I heard the terms "big government" and "socialism" used by someone calling themselves a conservative, I laugh. The Constitution itself was a big-government reaction against the real limited government of the Articles of Confederation. The so-called limited government Federalists wanted a bigger government than their rivals, and the conservatives Whigs explicitly wanted big government and big business to work together.

Limited government conservatism has always been a lie.

I think I'm more a right-libertarian than a paleo-conservative.  The only difference is that I tend to be an objectivist on some issues where paleo-conservatives are not. Then again, the difference between paleocons and right-libertarians is laughably petty.

Funny how now if you're a constitutionalist you're the closest thing we have to an anarchist here.

not really outside of trade issues where buchanan is nationalist and paul is for free trade. there's not much differnce betwenn them at all. even in financial matters outside of trade they agree in theory.

I just cannot agree. I recall when Buchanan ran for president and he made some criticisms of the Republican Congress, not on tax, but on entitlement cuts. He is a cultural conservative and his views on the constitution are aimed to preserve traditions while Paul's is actual ideological (classic) liberalism. Buchanan would compromise on the size of the State while Paul would not.

Yes, because if a few things are similar they must be identical? Right? MY GOD! Both the democrats and the communists believe in redistributing wealth! *GASP*