Conservatives should vote for Ron Paul, and NOT Fred Thompson

ANSWERS TO YOUR REBUTTALS: 1. That may be Fred Thompson's rhetoric, but he had no problem lobbying for Planned Parenthood (or was it NARAL?). Yes, that's his job as a lawyer, but that further demonstrates his lack of character. Furthermore, if he truly believed in abortion as a state's issue, he would have a more proactive approach of removing abortion for the jurisdiction of federal courts. He never sponsored such a bill as a senator. Like other "conservatives," Thompson's supposed "plan" is to appoint pro-life justices to the Supreme Court, whereby a ruling with thirty-four years of precedent can be overturned... Unlikely! 2. My opponent says "the UN . . . does a lot of a good for the world. From keeping the peace in conflicting areas of different nations to helping poorer nations to get back on their feet." Spoken like a true liberal. You do recall the subject of this debate is CONSERVATIVES should support Ron Paul, right? The UN has never done any good for anyone but the cronies and bureaucrats it keeps rich. True conservatives have always opposed America's membership to this socialist, anti-gun, pro-abortion, world-government organization, and even "mainstream" conservatives publications today still do. It is only the CFR elites, like Thompson (and Romney and all of the other Republican candidates, save for Paul), along with the Democrats, who support the UN. And you don't know what the problem with NAFTA is? Why did you take this debate if you aren't even familiar with the subject matter? NAFTA is an unconstitutional supra-national bureaucracy that, like your cherished UN, greatly undermines America's sovereignty. 3. Thompson supports the continued existence of the unconstitutional income tax and the lawless IRS. The elimination of these things has traditionally been a goal of conservatives, but they are not goals of Thompson, or any other Republican candidate, save for Ron Paul. (Huckabee's bogus "Fair Tax" would be even worse, so I don't count him). 4. Well, by the time you're done with your course, you will have a lot of un-learning to do. May I suggest F.A. Hayek's Road to Serfdom and Constitution of Liberty -- two books highly thought of by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher? You are going to be fed Keynesian and monetarist lies by your "macroeconomics" class. But of course, PhD's can't be wrong. So when you take a class in political science from a Marxist PhD, you'll have to accept Marxism too. Your college coursework is only a jump-off point -- you need to do independent research if you want to become legitimately educated. I suggest mises.org to start with. And by the way, I do have a degree in the subject matter and I am a professional financial writer. 5. He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. 'Nuff said. 6. If you think Thompson has good family values, then I'm no one to judge. This issue isn't important to me, but it is to many conservatives. Having a wife young enough to be your granddaughter and referring to her as a possession -- not something Ron Paul would do. NOW TO YOUR 'BEEFS': 1. You think leaving will breed more terrorists, but what about all of the innocents being killed and maimed? Are not their family members and friends more likely to fall victim to extremist rhetoric? Of course. How long are we to stay in Iraq? At what cost? Are you willing to contribute voluntarily to the cause so that I don't have to and the Fed doesn't need to print more money, stealing wealth from pensioners and savers? If not, then what is your plan to pay for this war? This leaves aside the constitutional aspects, even the moral aspects. Nation building and world policing are traditional left-liberal views -- NOT the views of conservatives. Study your history -- and not the propaganda your leftist/neocon history professor will feed you. 2. Take a look at the number of agencies Thomas Jefferson or Grover Cleveland had. Now look. We never repeal agencies, we only rename them and/or add to them. Virtually all of the agencies currently under the executive branch are unconstitutional, and that's the #1 reason they should be abolished. But Ron Paul makes no promises to do so -- he can't do it alone, and his goal is to REDUCE the power of the president and the federal government, not expand it. Andrew Jackson tried to do good through expansion of executive powers, and it only set the stage for later tyrants. Ron Paul knows better. But here are some of the worthless and/or counterproductive agencies that could and should be abolished: Education: The Constitution does not delegate the power to the federal government. Education should be handled locally, not by the centralized government. The department only came into being in 1979, and could easily be done away with. Has education actually improved since 1979? Of course not! Quite the opposite. Energy: The government should not pick winners and losers in the free market. There need not be an energy policy at all. There is no cell-phone policy, and yet cell phones get distributed to those who need them. Plus, the technology gets better and prices get lower at the same time! Agriculture: Just a big welfare agency for paying farmers not to work. Horribly unconstitutional and demeaning. Labor: Another relatively new department. The National Labor Relations Board should also be abolished, and workers should form unions just as capitalists form corporations -- via contract. Unionized workers should have no "special rights." Also, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the government's leading economic propaganda and fraud mill, should be abolished. Oh, and while we're at it, the other half of the old Commerce and Labor Department, the Commerce Department, could also be abolished. Homeland Security: Totally unconstitutional, unnecessary, and wasteful. These actions should be carried out by local police, etc. This is yet another new agency brought into existence by a supposed "conservative." DEA: There's no constitutional basis for this or for the federal prohibition of drugs. A constitutional amendment was needed for Prohibition, and one of the first bans on marijuana was ruled unconstitutional. The earliest anti-drug laws that stuck were constitutional taxes on the drug in question. Why then did the government magically gain this power? It didn't. EPA: Another completely worthless agency. Regulations are only protections for polluters. The civil tort system (and sometimes criminal courts) can deal with legitimate property-rights violations. Housing and Urban Development: Along with the Fed, another major player in the housing bubble. This is just more socialism, and it's not only unconstitutional, but bad for everyone involved (but the bankers, of course), too. I could go on, but that's enough for now.