There is a point that I can definitely agree with you on.

I wasn't really that busy, simple copy and paste. I strongly disagree with you. Conservative principles should apply at all times not just when you're heading off a cliff. Are you really saying that Rick's fiscally un-conservative voting record of higher taxes and increased spending are justified because "it was a different world." So you are a conservative when things are bad but a liberal when things are going good.

Please tell us what the Constitution's defined role for earmark spending is.

So a good leader must know how to persuade republicans to be conservative? I'm sorry but true conservatives shouldn't need to be persuaded to be conservative. If everyone just followed their oath of office to defend the constitution they'd all be conservatives. I expect democrats to dishonor that vow but not republicans.

I think government would be functioning a lot better if there was a lot more "No" votes taking place. It's always "Yes" to taxes, "Yes" to spending, "Yes" to new government funded programs, "Yes" to increasing the size of existing programs. The people have had enough "Yes" votes.

My favorite thing about Rick is that he's not afraid to raise our taxes and raise the debt ceiling. When he doubled the size of the department of education he didn't apologize to conservatives he just claimed that he "made a mistake" because he wanted to be a "team player" and vote against conservative principles. I just love his fiscally conservative voting record:

Voted against a flat tax.
Voted to increase tobacco taxes to pay for Medicare prescription drugs
Voted to increase tobacco taxes to fund health insurance subsidies for small businesses.
Voted to increase tobacco taxes to pay for an $8 billion increase in child healh insurance.
Voted to increase tobacco taxes to pay for an increase in NIH funding.
Voted twice for internet taxes.
Voted to allow gas tax revenues to be used to subsidize Amtrak.
Voted to strike marriage penalty tax relief and instead provide fines on tobacco companies.
Voted against repealing the Clinton 4.3 cent gas tax increase.
Voted to increase taxes by $2.3 billion to pay for an Amtrak trust fund.
Voted to allow welfare to a minor who had a child out of wedlock and who resided with an adult who was on welfare within the previous two years.
Voted to increase taxes by $9.4 billion to pay for a $9.4 billion increase in student loans.
Voted to say that AMT patch is more important than capital gains and dividend relief.

★Welfare

Voted against food stamp reform
Voted against Medicaid reform
Voted against TANF reform
Voted to increase the Social Services Block Grant from $1 billion to $2 billion
Voted to increase the FHA loan from $170,000 to $197,000. Also opposed increasing GNMA guaranty from 6 basis points to 12.
Voted for $2 billion for low income heating assistance.

★Waste

Sponsored An amendment to increase Amtrak funds by $550 million
Voted to use HUD funds for the Joslyn Art Museum (NE), the Stand Up for Animals project (RI) and the Seattle Art Museum’s Olympic Sculpture Project (WA)
Voted to increase spending on social programs by $7 billion
Voted to increase NIH funding by $1.6 billion.
Voted to increase NIHnding by $700 million
Voted for a $2 million earmark to renovate the Vulcan Monument (AL)
Voted for a $1 billion bailout for the steel industry
Voted against requiring that highway earmarks would come out of a state’s highway allocation
Voted to allow Market Access Program funds to go to foreign companies.
Voted to allow OPIC to increase its administrative costs by 50%
Voted against transferring $20 million from Americorps to veterans.
Voted for the $140 billion asbestos compensation bill.
Voted against requiring a uniform medical criteria to ensure asbestos claims were legitimate.
Voted to increase community development programs by $2 billion.

★Spending and Entitlements

Voted to make Medicare part B premium subsidies an new entitlement.
Voted against paying off the debt ($5.6 trillion at the time) within 30 years.
Voted to give $18 billion to the IMF.
Voted to raid Social Security instead of using surpluses to pay down the debt.

You claim that it takes skill to convince congress to walk the walk... and that is why congress has a 9% approval rating. What we need is more members of congress that respect their oath of office to defend the constitution and walk the walk... and who don't just talk the talk around election season. I blame those like Santorum who say "I made a mistake" but give no apology to the American people who fund his increases in government spending.

Yeah, we should all blame Paul for not implementing what he proposes. All it takes is skill to convince the rest of congress to do the right thing. Why couldn't Paul convince Santorum to vote against doubling the size of the department of education rather than vote along with his "team." Santorum explained that sometimes you just have to vote against conservative principles and "take one for team."

So yeah, I get a little sarcastic. Do you even hear yourself speak? You're right that Paul "talks the talk." What you don't seem to realize is that he also "walks the walk" as demonstrated by his voting record. What more can a congressman do than "talk the talk" and "walk the walk?"

There was a national ban on the sale, manufacture, and transportation of alcohol mandated by the 18th amendment. The point that I tried to make is that there is no such constitutional ban on drugs. Given that there is no such ban the tenth amendment says: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Thus, the constitutional position is that legalization should be decided by the states. If there is some flaw in my reasoning I'd appreciate your scholarly help.

If we just stood out of Israel's way (i.e. let them have their sovereignty) then we wouldn't have to worry about them. It's bad enough that we condemn them when they defend themselves. Israel is by far the superior military power. Iran's questionable nuclear bomb doesn't really compare to Israel's hundreds of nuclear bombs. It's time we stopped intervening.

You mean our beloved constitutional Republic. The federal government has no constitutional authority for a federal "war on drugs." When they prohibited alcohol they did it in a constitutional fashion and amended the constitution. They have done no such thing with drugs and therefore those powers of legality should be reserved to the states (10th amendment). You can be against the federal "war on drugs" without being pro-drugs.

Ending the prohibition of alcohol removed wealth and power from criminals and gangsters. Today we get alcohol from capitalists. Would you say we failed the prohibition? By giving people the liberty to drink we put criminals out of business and opened the door to entrepreneurs. What does it mean to "win the drug war" that we've been fighting for decades costing taxpayers now over 20 billion per year? Technically this type of war can never be won. As conservatives we should be against the "war on drugs" for constitutional reasons. The federal government, under the 10th amendment, has no authority to make drugs illegal. When alcohol was made illegal it was at least done in a constitutional manner, i.e. they amended the constitution. The constitutional position is that individual states should decide legality of drugs. So you can be against the federal "war on drugs" without being pro-drugs.