Conservatives should vote for Ron Paul, and NOT Fred Thompson

The same can be said for you. You should brush up on your debate tactics. The only reason I am pointing these out is because it is important for the audience to realize why you sound like you are right. However many times you choose to say that I am not a conservative, you are simply throwing out an unnecessary and irrelevant ad hominem attack. You've apparently ignored my previous requests to have you cease this very un-debate-like tactic, and instead you continue it further. Furthermore, you display a different type of ad hominem attack, which is associating my supposed "lack of education" with my not agreeing with you. This is fallacious in and of itself simply because there are plenty of people more educated than you are who do not side with your beliefs. Yet another fallacy you continue to commit is to assume that I am a "big-government liberal" simply because I do not side with your beliefs. Is everyone a "big-government" liberal if they think Ron Paul is a whack? Think about that. My level of your specifically defined conservatism does not dictate whether or not I call myself a conservative or if I can participate in this debate. I hope you know that the constitution was not designed to be a layout of things we can and cannot do. The founding fathers specifically made it flexible. This means, of course, that anything you say is "unconstitutional" is probably not actually unconstitutional. If we were to go with everything you and your other beloved Ron Paul supporters wanted to do, then the country would be thrown back into the age of extreme state independence where each state was only a part of a confederacy. This conflicts with a unified country. This is not the viewpoint of a "big-government liberal." This is a viewpoint of a rational human being, which conservatives are supposed to be. I will not make the judge on whether or not you are, in fact, a conservative, since over time, that term has become quite relative. However, I will say that your views are reactionary enough. 1. Then, you are going against the Court's decision that banning abortions is unconstitutional. See? I just used the term in the way it is meant to be used. Paul's advocation for the repeal of Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional as determined by the courts. And do not come and say that you know better than a team of supreme court justices on constitutional law. 2. So you do not think the UN does ANY good for ANYONE? What sick, selfish person you are if you think that. Conservatism was never reactionism. Who cares if you think a "self-described" conservative would never make that statement that the UN does plenty of good for the world. The truth of the matter is that a rational human being would admittedly say that the UN has corruption and sides with extreme liberal views often, but would never say that the UN entirely is bad. Additionally, you said, "How the other world views us is only important from within the confines of the Constitution and our national interests." About the "confines of the Constitution" is typical Ron Paul blabber, but what is interesting is you said "national interests." So you don't think being a world partner and having good relations with other very well-developed nations are pertinent to our national interests? I thought that Ron Paul didn't believe in "isolationist policy" but rather "non-interventionist." I rest my case about the UN. In reality, NAFTA could very well be repealed if it really took away from the congress's constitutional authority. The authority will forever remain within the congress since it can be repealed if Congress thought of NAFTA in that way. 3. Wait... are you saying that Ron Paul believes taxation to be immoral?: "Fred Thompson, like every other Republican (including, no, ESPECIALLY Huckabee) sees no immorality in taxation..." You don't have to answer that. I will assume that you were kidding. And I think the taxes most in need of repeal are the death tax, estate tax, and taxes on capital gains and dividends. They aren't fair and/or are detrimental to overall productivity. 4. "Universities are filled with Marxists, Keynesians, and monetarists -- all discredited theories." Tell that to the thousands of people who disagree and are much wiser and more educated than you. And you should point out where I've said you don't have a degree in the subject. That's not my argument. My argument is that there are many people who disagree with you who have a broader knowledge base than you will ever have. The simple assumption that universities are basically wrong because they primarily teach a more predominant form of economics with which you disagree is absurd. I do believe that just because someone has a Ph.D. doesn't necessarily mean that they are completely correct. In fact, people with Ph.D.s disagree with each other all the time. However, my point is that I'd rather take the opinion of someone who has thoroughly researched and written a dissertation on the subject than someone who did a bit of reading and came up with a countertheory. 5. I don't know where you read that, but it does make me laugh. The stated mission of CFR is to inform the public about foreign affairs and help build the next foreign policy leaders. 6. No, it doesn't, and I don't need to explain why. BEEFS: 1. America is able to be defeated provided the opposing force is powerful enough. The "defeats" you talk about are mainly political losses in which it was impossible to keep the war going if the public was whole-heartedly against it. Militarily, it was fine. The image the media brought about on the Vietnam War greatly influenced public opinion. Even still, I consider the Vietnam War not a very good war. The current war has brought a fraction of the casualties and our mission is clearly defined. When you end the constant need for continuous bombing of Iraq after placing a democratic government with the capability of policing themselves, then we do not need to have a serious presence in Iraq. And on the subject of conservatism, I believe that patriotism is a very serious conservative value. Calling America an "empire" is certainly not that. 2. "This is another liberal argument -- "the nation evolves" -- i.e. the Constitution is a "living document" that can be "interpreted over time" by the dictators in black robes." Sorry, your attacks to identity might work with some people, but not with me. If you think that the founding fathers wanted us not to interpret the constitution for current affairs and be stuck back into the mentality of the 18th century, then you are insane. "Wow. Again, this debate was for CONSERVATIVES, who by definition are supposed to be strict constructionists -- not liberals who happen to not like abortion." More ad hominem attacks to my identity! You are starting to sound like a kook. "your pro-Fed" I never said I was pro-Fed. I have no reason to since I cannot accurately debate that topic. "pro-blind obedience to university professors" I don't have blind obedience to university professors, but I do respect them as being great contributors to their respective fields as well as having an enormous amount of knowledge in those fields as well. Not to do that would also be insanity. "pro-income tax" Did I say I was pro-income tax? Point that out, please. "pro-UN" I said that the UN does some good things. Sorry, bud, that doesn't translate to "UN = Gold!" "anti-free trade" No clue where you got that. "pro-Constitution as a "living document"" No problem with this. "Real conservatives know better and that's why they should vote for Ron Paul." Real conservatives are rational human beings who think for themselves. You may define yourself in this bunch, but I assure you that real conservatives can also vote for other candidates such as Fred Thompson.