rightsourceonline.com — Why would the leadership of the Christian Right reject someone who was pro-religion, pro-life, pro-family values, pro-religious liberty, pro-Constitution, and a veteran, who not only was opposed to same-sex marriage, unrestricted immigration, gun control, and the United Nations, but never, in all his years in Congress, voted to raise taxes......?
Jun 6, 2007 View in Crawl 4
ca34roJun 6, 2007
It's because he has a history and a reputation. Most of the religious right are pro-Israel.Ron Paul has been very outspoken about his stance against Israel. Although his handlers have worked hard to try to clean up his image, they have only been successful in selling him to those who don't know his history.
freerepublicJun 6, 2007
It really makes me sick to my stomach to hear the Republican candidates last night during the debate uttering out how they think the most important moral issue is "the sanctity of life", but along with that they support our foreign occupation of Iraq, and possibly nuking Iran because they "might" decide to attack us when they get a nuclear bomb, 8-10 years from now. This is so inconsistent. I wish Republicans would debate this issue. But alas, the Neo-Cons are incapable of it. Imagine If someone pointed out this inconsistency last night, (like Ron Paul). The Neo-Cons, (Rudy McRomney), would immediately begin to salivate, and gnash their teeth together. Then they would grunt, "Why...why this is so un-American, and un-patriotic....I am disgusted by this statement." "I support the troops." "I support America." "We have done great things in Iraq, and we will continue to do great things in Iraq." "The media has a liberal bias to it." "They aren't reporting the good things from Iraq." Then the crowd would applaud heavily, and Wolf Blitzer would go to another question about whether or not Bill Clinton should have intervened in the 2000 Elian Gonzalez case. The truth always gets snuffed out with the presence of Neo-Con gas surrounding it.
joybranJun 7, 2007
@ Junkyarddawg"not only voted against federally funded stem cell research, but later also against ALL stem cell research."When did Congress ever try to pass a bill that would make any kind of research illegal? Private companies aren't allowed to research anything they want? It is always federal funding they vote on. Ron Paul always votes against federal funding for any kind of research because funding research is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution as a power of the federal government.
ca34roJun 8, 2007
@ joybran - Wrong, that is not his only stance, as those who have followed Ron Paul's career over the years know all too well.Try shutting down your computer and go to the library for some old fashioned research. You'll be shocked to learn that "your man" is not the champion of freedom that he is currently professing. His handlers have cleaned him up for his current campaign.The whole purpose of Ron Paul is to create a divide and siphon off the redneck vote. That's why Alex Jones has been bankrolled to promote him.
sulllyJun 28, 2007
If there really is a "tribulation period" following a rapture of true believers, the scenario which the majority of evangelical Christians believe will happen, a lot of these "religious right conservatives" will be leading the left over, blind church.