Conservatives should vote for Ron Paul, and NOT Fred Thompson

Gee, if I had a nickel for every time you said the word "unconstitutional," I'd be a millionaire. You throw that word out too much. Instead of explaining exactly why it is unconstitutional, you simply throw the word out seemingly because a certain thing "should" be unconstitutional. This only makes you sound like a rabid Ron Paul supporter. 1. How exactly does Ron Paul want to go about removing Roe v. Wade? How do you do that without first having the Supreme Court turn over Roe v. Wade? As it stands, disallowing anyone from making the choice to have an abortion is unconstitutional. It's nationally effective. 2. "Spoken like a true liberal. You do recall the subject of this debate is CONSERVATIVES should support Ron Paul, right?" For a smart guy, you should know that these blatant ad hominem attacks are simply irrelevant and do not belong in the debate. Anyway, ignoring all of your attacks, I will respond to the rest of it. I will admittedly say that the UN does have some corruption and its typically liberal policies are simply a waste of money. However, retreating from the UN is laughable. Listen, the US has already gotten itself into a snag. The US is certainly a fundamental part of the UN, and it might be ok if we left. But wait! If Ron Paul is so concerned about how countries view us, why would he do this? Retreating from the UN would make us look horrible; like we don't care about other countries and think we are the best. Also, not knowing why NAFTA is a problem doesn't mean I am not "familiar with the subject matter." That's a ridiculous assertion. And still, you don't offer a complete argument. You simply say that NAFTA is "unconstitutional" and "greatly undermines our sovereignty." You don't mention why that is. 3. Actually, you shouldn't include FairTax supporters in your assessment of who wants to get rid of the IRS because the FairTax essentially does that. You can't ignore that Ron Paul isn't the only one with that view. And also, a few of the candidates seek to implement the FairTax plan. Romney doesn't because he believes the FairTax to have flaws that need corrections and abolishing the IRS altogether without any plan of transition to be too radical. I suppose Thompson more or less believes the same way. Please give me a quote where Thompson says, "I like the IRS; it is good; it should stay." 4. So, now you are saying not to believe anything my Ph.D.-holding professors say because they are wrong. WOW. Look, if I had a Marxist professor, I bet he would have pretty good reasons for being Marxist, especially if he were a political science professor. I do think and research for myself, especially because I am a business major, and I've said before that, until then, I will trust the judgment of a man with a Ph.D. in economics from MIT over someone with no degree in the same subject at all. 5. That doesn't say anything. Elaborate why the CFR wants a One World Government, and more importantly, why Thompson supports this. 6. He's 65 and she's 41. That's definitely not a granddaughter difference. There have been plenty of perfectly fine marriages with this kind of difference. Beefs: 1. You start digressing in your argument. I will only respond to what I asked you, and that's why Ron Paul's advocation for immediate withdrawal makes sense. And so, you claim that staying will kill more individuals and thereby creating more terrorists. I already know this happens. But, by leaving prematurely, you are also telling the terrorists that America is able to be defeated. Therefore, the family members being hurt and killed in conjunction with the certainty that America can be defeated would probably create far more recruitment than is happening now. 2. The nation evolves. Get with the program. Some things are created to deal with current problems. And your arguments for the abolition of all of those agencies are somewhat valid. You never explain why any of them are unconstitutional, but I'll leave that alone. Why do you support destroying them altogether instead of simply reducing their power, though? If you can reduce their power, show that the departments are unnecessary, then they can be dissolved easily. Abolishing them all without any solid plan of action isn't something I support.