Ron Paul Wins CPAC Straw Poll...Again

#51
#51
IPorange said:
You sound like bizarro-world utgibbs. Mainstream, right-of-center America is awfully schizophrenic...

I don't think America has a "mainstream" any more. It has two divergent "mainstreams," with each mistaking themselves to be a majority. It's a political spectrum rather than political categories, these days (if it were ever really that different).
Click to expand...

Polls show America as right of center on the issues when the issues are listed independent of party. Dems have mastered the art of tapping into special interest groups who will vote on one issue if sufficiently scared. The GOP does it too but nowhere near the level of success that Dems have.

I think you are right that we have a diverging country. IMO, the survival of the country will eventually come down to an amicable divorce whereby 2-5 new countries are formed or else a return to a much more federalist system. It would not bother me at all if a state had gibbs philosophy on economics but shared a military with my state. I wouldn't mind if a state had your "middle of the road" policies and shared a highway system with mine. Personally I think 50 states striving to come up with solutions for problems would be vastly superior to a top down, centralized approach.

As long as power is centralized in DC, we will continue to repeat these cycles of failure.
 
#54
#54
JTrainDavis said:
Who are we talking about again?
Click to expand...

Palin. You may be left of her on the issues but if you look at where she stands... she aligns well with polling of the general public. This is not a statement of support. I am not sure she would make a good President. However, she wants to keep taxes low, the public agrees. She wants to repeal Obamacare, so does the public. The public opposes homosexual marriage and adoptions, so does she. The people want border security and no amnesty, she's right there. She wants to end federal funding of abortion, so does she. She opposes corporate bail outs and the influence of unions- so does the country.

Palin more than any politician in recent memory has been attacked and demonized to the point of convincing people to hate her who know almost nothing about her.
 
#55
#55
Homosexual marriage is going to happen. It's only a matter of time, as the baby boomers start dying off.
 
#56
#56
IPorange said:
I just thought it was interesting that someone simply endorsing a candidate was enough to reject them alone. That's all.
Click to expand...

did I say that was the only reason? I understand that endorsements come from everywhere. Paul was specifically asked about Duke and basically said that Duke's money was green just like everybody else'.
 
#58
#58
MG1968 said:
back to Ron Paul, I'm not going to vote for anybody that was endorsed by David Duke and his merry band of racists.
Click to expand...

Just sincerely curious... and not even a particular supporter of Paul due to his foreign policy ideas... did he solicit their endorsement? In what way does he control who endorses him?
 
#59
#59
sjt18 said:
Just sincerely curious... and not even a particular supporter of Paul due to his foreign policy ideas... did he solicit their endorsement? In what way does he control who endorses him?
Click to expand...

read the American Thinker article I linked to above.

but, to answer your question, no, he didn't actively seek out Duke's endorsement, but he didn't exactly back away from Duke when asked.
 
#60
#60
IPorange said:
Homosexual marriage is going to happen. It's only a matter of time, as the baby boomers start dying off.
Click to expand...

It shouldn't but it may. If it does it will lead to real persecution of Christians in America. It will amount to the gov't taking a side on the morality of the issue. Once it does that pastors will be sued for not performing ceremonies, sermons or even scripture reading will be rendered "hate speech", private adoption agencies will be forced to make a choice between conviction and continuing, Christian business people will be forced to provide spousal benefits contrary to their religious beliefs...

One of Obama's recent EEOC appointees openly admits that homosexual "rights" vs religious rights is a zero sum game. For homosexuals to win gov't endorsement and promotion of their "lifestyle", religion and in particular Christianity has to lose their right of conscience.
 
#61
#61
MG1968 said:
read the American Thinker article I linked to above.

but, to answer your question, no, he didn't actively seek out Duke's endorsement, but he didn't exactly back away from Duke when asked.
Click to expand...

the article kind of lost me when they basically said they know he hates jews because he didn't take the one jewish reporter's call. bit questionable logic at best.
 
#62
#62
sjt18 said:
It shouldn't but it may. If it does it will lead to real persecution of Christians in America. It will amount to the gov't taking a side on the morality of the issue. Once it does that pastors will be sued for not performing ceremonies, sermons or even scripture reading will be rendered "hate speech", private adoption agencies will be forced to make a choice between conviction and continuing, Christian business people will be forced to provide spousal benefits contrary to their religious beliefs...

One of Obama's recent EEOC appointees openly admits that homosexual "rights" vs religious rights is a zero sum game. For homosexuals to win gov't endorsement and promotion of their "lifestyle", religion and in particular Christianity has to lose their right of conscience.
Click to expand...

If Christians didn't do business with any sinners, they would do no business at all.
 
#63
#63
droski said:
the article kind of lost me when they basically said they know he hates jews because he didn't take the one jewish reporter's call. bit questionable logic at best.
Click to expand...

that was a quote from the Jewish reporter trying to get an interview with Paul, not from the AT writer.
 
#64
#64
IPorange said:
If Christians didn't do business with any sinners, they would do no business at all.
Click to expand...

I didn't say anything about doing business with them. There's a difference between trading with someone and employing them. One just calls for an exchange of goods. The other is a relationship in which the employee on some level becomes representative of the company's identity. Most importantly, that business owner will be forced against his will to financially support a relationship he believes to be immoral. He may even believe it to be sinful for him to support the relationship through spousal benefits.

The gov't should never be in a position to say "You accept this as moral and worth of support or else go out of business"... but it will be.
 
#65
#65
I guess I just fundamentally disagree with you, sjt. I find it immoral to have children when you can't support them, but I can't make hiring decisions based on that.
 
#66
#66
To me, Ron Paul should be attractive as a candidate to anyone who has an individualist mindset. Our Constitution was more or less written to apply to self-governing people. The Federal Government is so far removed from the self-governing individual that no one can convince me otherwise. The vast majority of politicians, both R and D, immediately devolve into a collectivist mentality the moment that they get to Washington, regardless of what they campaigned on.

Those of us who support Ron Paul might not agree with him on all of his platform, but by and far know what he will do if elected, which is not the status quo.

Truthfully, I think we are too far gone as a country for anyone like Ron to get elected. As someone earlier mentioned, we are a nation of sound bites, the vast majority of the electorate either can't or won't think critically about the issues that face this nation.

Political positions of Ron Paul

Regardless of what you think of the specific candidates or who you support, the question I have for this thread is a.) do you know who you are going to support and b.) are you going to be actively involved in their campaign, or are you just going to be sitting on the sidelines pontificating your opinions?
 
#67
#67
why doesn't Paul be honest with himself and his supporters and switch to the Libertarian party?
 
#69
#69
IPorange said:
I guess I just fundamentally disagree with you, sjt. I find it immoral to have children when you can't support them, but I can't make hiring decisions based on that.
Click to expand...

I am VERY libertarian on property rights to include the rights of employers and ESPECIALLY private company employers to express their value system through hiring. Other than strictly benign characteristics that have nothing at all to do with choices... I think the property owner should get the nod. Don't like how he does it? Go start your own company and beat him.

IOW's, in my ideal political world, you could base hiring on demonstrated acts of financial recklessness but not for the amount of melanin in an applicants skin. You could discriminate on the basis of moral sexual choices to include hetero cohabitation but not on gender except in cases where certain traits are necessary for job performance (strength, dexterity, empathy, voice, etc). As far as that goes, if someone wanted to say they didn't want any married people but would accept co-habiting couples that would be fine with me.

I frankly do not think religion should be part of the protected classes. Religion is a choice. If held truly, it shapes a person's worldview including how they act in the workplace.

Again, I am very libertarian on these types of issues.
 
Last edited:
#70
#70
The good news here is that the more people learn about Sarah Palin, the less support she garners - even from her "core constituency".
 
#71
#71
MG1968 said:
did I say that was the only reason? I understand that endorsements come from everywhere. Paul was specifically asked about Duke and basically said that Duke's money was green just like everybody else'.
Click to expand...

I'm not a Ron Paul'er, but to be fair, (and we could be talking about separate instances) - he was asked to give the money back if he didn't support the endorsement, and Paul asked why would he give the money back to a white supremacy group. He couldn't control who gives him money, and he's against what the group stands for. He just wasn't going to give them the money back.
 
#72
#72
sjt18 said:
Polls still do not support the repeal of DADT. Gitmo is still open. Military trials are still going on. US forces are still in places he said he'd have them out of by now. Iran is going nuke on his watch and he's doing nothing about it.

Unless he really does something substantial in his second term or events carry him somehow... he may not make it through the primary. He has WAY too many failures on his resume.
Click to expand...
sjt, I enjoy reading your posts and you seem to be rather well informed(moreso than I) but these items you list would be used against Obama either way. I do not care about DADT as I respect ANY citizen willing to risk their lives in our defense. I realize that he ran on withdrawls overseas and closing GITMO but if he had the Right would be bashing him for being soft so these should be issues upsetting his own party. Iran didn't start its nuke program in 2008. My qustion is what could/should he have done differently?
 
#73
#73
CSVol said:
... but these items you list would be used against Obama either way.
Click to expand...
Possibly but they are traps of his own creation.
I do not care about DADT as I respect ANY citizen willing to risk their lives in our defense.
Click to expand...
When people will face life or death together, you should not introduce these types of issues. DADT allows for behavior to be dealt with that could hurt morale. A few years ago (while Clinton was being defended by feminazis) the Sgt Major of the US Army was accused and convicted of sexual harassment. His behavior was detrimental to morale and good discipline.

The military isn't a social experiment or a lab for them.

I realize that he ran on withdrawls overseas and closing GITMO but if he had the Right would be bashing him for being soft so these should be issues upsetting his own party.
Click to expand...
He opened his mouth and personally made these BIG issues in the campaign. The MSM set him up by running Bush and the war down as often and as vigorously as they could. He then stepped on the scene to say he'd reverse these terrible policies.

His Iraq withdrawl program may actually be BEHIND the one Bush and Rumsfeld had worked out.

No one force Obama to make those big promises. He's fully accountable.

Iran didn't start its nuke program in 2008. My qustion is what could/should he have done differently?
Click to expand...

They have actually done part of it lately by cyber warfare. That was actually something he should get credit for. If it weren't so embarrassing to Iran's leadership, they'd be out beating their chest about it being an act of war.

However it does not destroy the physical infrastructure. Iran with nukes changes the whole geopolitical balance. ALL necessary means should be used to prevent them from getting them. That would include air and cruise missile strikes.
 
#74
#74
My major point CSVol is that Obama's weakness is to great to be solved just by a drop in unemployment. Several of the issues I mentioned ARE ones that the left will abandon him over.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top