Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Perd Hapley on January 21, 2012, 10:29:49 PM
-
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/01/21/2601470/newt-gingrich-stomps-mitt-romney.html
Gingrich won big time in South Carolina, gaining 41 percent of the vote to Romney's 27 percent. Rick Santorum won 17 percent and Ron Paul 13 percent.
Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/01/21/2601470/newt-gingrich-stomps-mitt-romney.html#storylink=cpy
Even if you don't like Newt so much, it's good to see Romney get his hind parts handed to him.
-
Wow - this is quite an interesting twist of events.
GOP in turmoil - news at 11!
-
Yeah, I didn't see that one coming.
It would be interesting to see Santorum drop out due to lack of cash, something Paul does not lack, IIRC.
I would like to see how the religious right vote got sliced. I suspect Santorum & Gingrich cornered it and Mitt got diddly-squat.
-
But how did Herman Cain fair?
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi776.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fyy50%2Fjdavis147%2Fcolbert-rally-thumb.jpg&hash=cc26f8a611fd3119a860866e232e42fa57ab089a)
jim
-
South Carolina primary results certainly are going to make things interesting. Unless something happens, Newt may take the Southern States. FL will tell the tale in about 10 days.
-
I would like to see how the religious right vote got sliced. I suspect Santorum & Gingrich cornered it and Mitt got diddly-squat.
I would expect some RR support for Paul, too. In 2008, we had a family visit our church, and set up a Ron Paul pamphlet booth outside of our outdoor potluck church social thing.
-
Well, Newt blew Romney and everyone else out of the water.
This should be interesting.
-
I would expect some RR support for Paul, too. In 2008, we had a family visit our church, and set up a Ron Paul pamphlet booth outside of our outdoor potluck church social thing.
Ayup. I do suspect Santorum gets more of the RR due to his more conventional persona. I would not mind being surprised, though, since Paul is right there with Santorum on the abortion issue, while both Newt & Mitt have been shaky in the past.
-
I would expect some RR support for Paul, too. In 2008, we had a family visit our church, and set up a Ron Paul pamphlet booth outside of our outdoor potluck church social thing.
The RR is steering away from Paul on account of his "liberal" views on abortion, prostitution, and drugs. Please folks, don't concern "liberal" with libertarian, or states' rights.
I live in Greenville Co., the most populous of the two "key" counties in the Upstate (and the rest of state for that matter)
Here's the breakdown. Frankly I thought Santorum would poll higher. Mitt's numbers I am not surprised at, as he is seen as a typical smooth talking weaselly yankee interloper who has been picked by the yankee lawyers in *spit* parts north.
I may be overstating that a bit though. I don't know entirely what the voting demographic is like in Greenville. There are a large number of conservative-minded immigrants who have moved here from all over the country on account of our growing economy.
I like Paul. Hell I'd have voted for Paul if I thought he could win, even accounting for his foreign policy, parts of which I substantially disagree with. I hope whoever wins sticks him somewhere in the Cabinet where he can do the most damage to the bureacracy. I truly think that if the rest of the country knew just how completely *boned* we are financially he would be a shoo-in. Slash and burn fiscal policy is the ONLY way out of the horrible, horrible mess we are in.
I went with Gingrich. I do like him. I don't especially trust him. He is the insider's insider. I'd have been happier with Cain, inexperienced though he was. But Gingrich has flair. He has polish. He has ideas even if he has not had private sector experience (something I respect about Romney, even if he has his finger in the wind more often than not).
But most importantly Newt has killer instinct. Newt has an uncanny way of deciphering the crux of the issue, breaking it down, and going for the throat--that last part is something I have never seen Romney do as well. (And, by the way, this is something I liked about Newt even when his campaign was falling apart last year. Remember that?)
We need a fighter to go after Obama. Not a moderate. I know Gingrich is polling really poorly among women on account of his at-times regrettable personal life, and generally against Obama. I expect that second item is partly because his message has not reached far outside the Republican party as of yet. That is a risk, and an opportunity, worth taking in my opinion. Anyways I have pontificated long enough.
The numbers for my county.
President
1 Seat to Fill
Michele Bachmann . . . . . . . . 49 .06
Herman Cain. . . . . . . . . . 789 1.03
Newt Gingrich . . . . . . . . . 30,520 39.68
Jon Huntsman . . . . . . . . . 135 .18
Gary Johnson . . . . . . . . . 36 .05
Ron Paul. . . . . . . . . . . 12,062 15.68
Rick Perry . . . . . . . . . . 245 .32
Mitt Romney. . . . . . . . . . 19,570 25.44
Rick Santorum . . . . . . . . . 13,509 17.56
-
I went with Gingrich. I do like him. I don't especially trust him. He is the insider's insider. I'd have been happier with Cain, inexperienced though he was. But Gingrich has flair. He has polish. He has ideas even if he has not had private sector experience (something I respect about Romney, even if he has his finger in the wind more often than not).
But most importantly Newt has killer instinct. Newt has an uncanny way of deciphering the crux of the issue, breaking it down, and going for the throat--that last part is something I have never seen Romney do as well. (And, by the way, this is something I liked about Newt even when his campaign was falling apart last year. Remember that?)
We need a fighter to go after Obama. Not a moderate. I know Gingrich is polling really poorly among women on account of his at-times regrettable personal life, and generally against Obama. I expect that second item is partly because his message has not reached far outside the Republican party as of yet. That is a risk, and an opportunity, worth taking in my opinion. Anyways I have pontificated long enough.
For me, it was most telling when Gingrich was pounding the table on the whole Clinton scandal, and then it turns out he was doing the same activity at the same time. In my opinion, that made him significantly worse than Clinton. Clinton didn't try to claim he was anything other than what he was.
I am still confused and mystified that the religious right supports him. I'd really appreciate some logical explanation of how such an amoral hypocrite can still get such strong support from a group totally at odds with his conduct.
-
The difference I see between Newt and Bill is that Bill lied until he got caught, and that is what got him in trouble. I don't think people cared as much about him playing hide the cigar as they were with him lying about it.
-
Newt is bad news. He may be witty and a good debater, but his message is crap. He WANTS big Government. Big Government for his big ego. We won't be any better off having him in the White House. He is a political influence broker. He really likes draconian laws such as the Patriot Act. That right there is a huge red flag. Forget about him not being able to keep an oath, he is hungry for power. Along with Romney, he's got dollar signs in his eyes.
-
For me, it was most telling when Gingrich was pounding the table on the whole Clinton scandal, and then it turns out he was doing the same activity at the same time. In my opinion, that made him significantly worse than Clinton. Clinton didn't try to claim he was anything other than what he was.
I am still confused and mystified that the religious right supports him. I'd really appreciate some logical explanation of how such an amoral hypocrite can still get such strong support from a group totally at odds with his conduct.
Folks may roll their eyes, but Newt claims to have been born again Catholic and put off the old man. So do his daughters from marriage number one and current wife number three (and maybe wife number one, too). Forgiveness of the truly contrite lies close to the heart of most Christian denominations and some folks take "practice what you preach" seriously.
Not sure i buy it, but it sure is an odd coalition of family members who vouch for him. Either way, I still think he is a dubious nominee. If we get rino for the gop candidate, a Mitt rino with Newts fiesty demeanor would be better.
-
For me, it was most telling when Gingrich was pounding the table on the whole Clinton scandal, and then it turns out he was doing the same activity at the same time. In my opinion, that made him significantly worse than Clinton. Clinton didn't try to claim he was anything other than what he was.
The bolded part there has me really confused. Clinton's lie about the Lewinsky scandal is one of the things he's best known for. He was disbarred for perjury, was he not?
I am still confused and mystified that the religious right supports him. I'd really appreciate some logical explanation of how such an amoral hypocrite can still get such strong support from a group totally at odds with his conduct.
This is the first I've heard of Newt's numbers being especially high with the religious right. Source? ???
-
The extent of Gingrich's win was surprising and impressive. He dominated the state except for Richland Co (RINO land of state government) and the lower coast. Romney was thumped. Is this the TEA types strike against the Man? Idunknow. Ron Paul made a respectable showing but not where I thought he'd be strong. Santorum? (yawn).
I voted Paul because he was the guy who would swing the biggest wrecking ball hardest and fastest and was promptly set upon by my daughters. Interestingly they've been raised on a steady diet of personal freedomresponsibility. Yet when explaining why they didn't like Paul as a candidate they haul out drugs and foreign policy. Based on a sample size of two I'd have to say Paul/libertarians have a problem with messaging and and an unacceptable front man.
Google results paints the picture of the extent of Gingrich's victory.
http://www.google.com/elections/ed/us/results
-
It may very well be that the voters of SC are primarily of the age where they remember how Newt led and voted as leader of the House.
The propaganda mill has pretty much obfuscated a decent congressional voting record.
Newt is a big government guy yes, the only one not is Paul.
We don't stand any chance of seeing a rollback of government under a Romney presidency, under a Gingrich presidency we could actually see some positive movement.
Project Vote Smart has all the votes and endorsements of our policritters:
http://www.votesmart.org/candidate/evaluations/26821/newt-gingrich
-
Folks may roll their eyes, but Newt claims to have been born again Catholic and put off the old man. So do his daughters from marriage number one and current wife number three (and maybe wife number one, too). Forgiveness of the truly contrite lies close to the heart of most Christian denominations and some folks take "practice what you preach" seriously.
Not sure i buy it, but it sure is an odd coalition of family members who vouch for him. Either way, I still think he is a dubious nominee. If we get rino for the gop candidate, a Mitt rino with Newts fiesty demeanor would be better.
That is my take on the RR support shifting in his favor.
-
For me, it was most telling when Gingrich was pounding the table on the whole Clinton scandal, and then it turns out he was doing the same activity at the same time. In my opinion, that made him significantly worse than Clinton. Clinton didn't try to claim he was anything other than what he was.
I am still confused and mystified that the religious right supports him. I'd really appreciate some logical explanation of how such an amoral hypocrite can still get such strong support from a group totally at odds with his conduct.
What the SC vote is telling us is that with all his warts Newt is the one who best reflects what First America wants in a leader. There are a lot of Americans now who really don't believe in Romney's sweetness and light pragmatism; they realize that what is at stake in 2012 is about a lot more than "jobs." They recognize the moral and cultural issues that underlie the economic problems we've developed. The nation is polarizing, not coming together, and Newt is embodying the will toward separation.
-
Newt is bad news. He may be witty and a good debater, but his message is crap. He WANTS big Government. Big Government for his big ego. We won't be any better off having him in the White House. He is a political influence broker. He really likes draconian laws such as the Patriot Act. That right there is a huge red flag. Forget about him not being able to keep an oath, he is hungry for power. Along with Romney, he's got dollar signs in his eyes.
What First America wants is not a libertarian but an enlightened nationalist. It's not about small or big government right now, it's about a growing rightwing populist movement that Newt is well-positioned to take advantage of.
-
Newt picked up a lot of votes in the SC primary when he took the moderator to task for opening the last debate with a question about Newt's ex-wife. I think people especially liked it when the moderator tried to duck responsibility by saying it was "another network" and Newt said words to the effect of "No, it was YOU and YOUR staff who STARTED this debate that way, so don't try to blame someone else!"
Newt is FAR from the ideal candidate - he still claims he presided over a balanced budget as Speaker (he didn't, the budget wasn't actually balanced since the national debt continued to increase) and he still favors a form of amnesty for some illegals. But he has good things to say about Ron Paul's economic positions, and with Newt, we MIGHT get a good SCOTUS nomination.
-
He is far from ideal, true, but they all are. And their imperfection reflects the division and confusion inside the country along with the sclerotic political process controlled by the establishment. Newt is willing to say things the others are not about the state of the culture, and it is resonating.
-
What First America wants is not a libertarian but an enlightened nationalist. It's not about small or big government right now, it's about a growing rightwing populist movement that Newt is well-positioned to take advantage of.
Are we looking at a possible1933 redux then? I just get the creepiest feeling that Newt might end up trying to name himself First Citizen of the Homeland or some such totalitarian entitlement.
"All hail First Citizen Newt!"
-
More likely to come from Obama, that. He's pretty much there already.
***
An aside about Ron Paul: too many of his supporters--I don't mean the people here--are young people who like getting high and have no interest in serving in the military. It's not about idealism, it's about me-first. Unfortunately, that kind of escapism, while certainly reflecting the peace and prosperity bubble of the last half-century that most younger people have enjoyed, doesn't conform well with what lies ahead.
-
Is Newt an ideal candidate? No, he isn't. He has some issues I don't agree with, and some things I do agree but would modify some. But, IMO, he is the best of the four still in the running and so got my vote yesterday after bouncing back and fourth a bit.
Romney or Santorum? Not just no. But hell no. Especially not in primary season.
Ron Paul? I like Paul. I want to like Ron Paul more than I do. I think he represents a good direction and is probably the most honest politician you are likely to find in Washington. When he speaks I'm right there with him...but then comes the problem. I'm right there with him but then he has to go and jump off the freaking cliff and into a direction I just don't agree with or I feel he misses the point of the problem.
-
An aside about Ron Paul: too many of his supporters--I don't mean the people here--are young people who like getting high and have no interest in serving in the military. It's about idealism, it's about me-first. Unfortunately, that kind of escapism, while certainly reflecting the peace and prosperity bubble of the last half-century that most younger people have enjoyed, doesn't conform well with what lies ahead.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?id=N00005906
I agree, the US Army, US Navy and US Air Force are filled with young people who like getting high and have no interest in serving in the military. They are idealists who are all about the me-first escapism. Obviously a bunch of young punks spoiled on peace and prosperity. Like any of them have even seen a war zone!
;)
-
More likely to come from Obama, that. He's pretty much there already.
***
An aside about Ron Paul: too many of his supporters--I don't mean the people here--are young people who like getting high and have no interest in serving in the military. It's not about idealism, it's about me-first. Unfortunately, that kind of escapism, while certainly reflecting the peace and prosperity bubble of the last half-century that most younger people have enjoyed, doesn't conform well with what lies ahead.
What you really mean is that that level of personal freedom is just a little too much for your comfort?
-
Are we looking at a possible1933 redux then? I just get the creepiest feeling that Newt might end up trying to name himself First Citizen of the Homeland or some such totalitarian entitlement.
"All hail First Citizen Newt!"
No kidding.....
-
I've said it before, ad nauseum, that it took nearly 70 years to get us where we are. It cannot be fixed overnight. But our country needs to shift back to the right slowly but surely. As POTUS New would represent only 1 of 3 branches. His appointment to the SCOTUS would be a counterbalance to the last two appointments and maybe even get the court to be impartial. Obama has proven that the congress cannot be steam rolled. Newt won't be able to do it either, but he would be a breath of fresh air as a historian rather than a dogma driven liberal.
He mentioned the other night that his candidate competition are good people and would be valuable additions to his administration. That comment has not been a big news item, but he said it.
Face it, Newt is the only candidate that will pull us back from the brink. White Shoe R's will broker someone if he doesn't get the nomination in the primaries and Mitt is a disaster.
-
More likely to come from Obama, that. He's pretty much there already.
***
An aside about Ron Paul: too many of his supporters--I don't mean the people here--are young people who like getting high and have no interest in serving in the military. It's not about idealism, it's about me-first. Unfortunately, that kind of escapism, while certainly reflecting the peace and prosperity bubble of the last half-century that most younger people have enjoyed, doesn't conform well with what lies ahead.
Pesky freedom. We should do more to get rid of that whole free will thing
-
Pesky freedom. We should do more to get rid of that whole free will thing
I'm telling you what I've observed with a merciless and unsentimental eye. Consumerism is not personal freedom. Neither is self-exemption from life's duties.
You know who you are. :)
-
Nazi Newt comparisons? Really?
Some of y'all need to take a deep breath and step back from the keyboard before you use it to confirm Proverbs 29:11. (Or was that Proverbs 18:6?)
Snuggle with your dog, watch an episode of Touched by an Angel, read some Dr Seuss, or something; 'cause The Krayzee is getting a bit thick in here.
-
No. I learned from the idiot box that anyone who opposes me is hitler.
See exhibit A
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net%2Fhphotos-ak-snc4%2F155150_1352049221794_1848305878_669585_3269278_n.jpg&hash=001d03d17c01d646e52b9efc70b0681150f5bfab)
-
I'm telling you what I've observed with a merciless and unsentimental eye. Consumerism is not personal freedom.
You know who you are. :)
Or so you claim.
But more importantly: the legitimacy of the state is drawn from securing freedom.
-
Or so you claim.
But more importantly: the legitimacy of the state is drawn from securing freedom.
No. The legitimacy of the state is drawn from securing life, property, and liberty. In that order.
-
No. The legitimacy of the state is drawn from securing life, property, and liberty. In that order.
that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —
No liberty? No legitimacy.
-
No. The legitimacy of the state is drawn from securing life, property, and liberty. In that order.
Uh, how did we figure that out? And how twisted is that - as long as oppressive measures stop theft and rioting for example, they would be justified because liberty is second to property???
I suppose you would morally have had to side with King George - the revolution was certainly more destructive of property than abiding his restrictions on liberty would have been.
-
that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
English. It's right there in bloody plain English. Governments derive their just powers (ie authority) from the consent of the governed.
-
So did someone say that they were against freedom or that liberty was not important or something? ???
-
Uh, how did we figure that out? And how twisted is that - as long as oppressive measures stop theft and rioting for example, they would be justified because liberty is second to property???
I suppose you would morally have had to side with King George - the revolution was certainly more destructive of property than abiding his restrictions on liberty would have been.
You will note I mentioned three as necessary for a state to be just. My implication is that any state that does not secure life is unjust. A state that secure only life but not property is still unjust, but less so than one that does not even secure life. A state that secures life and property but not liberty is still unjust but less so than one that simply secures life. A state that secures all three is fulfilling its just purpose. Obviously there are varying amounts of how well life, property and liberty are secured, but without the first, the other two are useless. Without the second, the third is useless. That is the reason for their primacy over liberty.
-
The problem with this argument is that the three overlap very strongly.
Without a right to property a person does not truly have liberty, and without a right to individual liberty (i.e. among other things being secure in his home and doing with it as he wishes) he does not truly have property rights.
-
I'd say they're kind of inseparable
edit: MB beat me to it
-
The problem with this argument is that the three overlap very strongly.
Without a right to property a person does not truly have liberty, and without a right to individual liberty (i.e. among other things being secure in his home and doing with it as he wishes) he does not truly have property rights.
And without virtue and reason none of them can exist or matter much. These are the values of a particular kind of human being. The Founders made that point over and over.
-
The problem with this argument is that the three overlap very strongly.
Without a right to property a person does not truly have liberty, and without a right to individual liberty (i.e. among other things being secure in his home and doing with it as he wishes) he does not truly have property rights.
You can argue the second two overlap. I'm willing to concede that. The first, however, is preeminent.
And without virtue and reason none of them can exist or matter much. These are the values of a particular kind of human being. The Founders made that point over and over.
Without them, liberty cannot exist, but governments cannot secure virtue and reason. They can subvert them though, as the past 40 years illustrates well.
-
Maybe I take a simplistic view of the matter, but I've always thought that liberty isn't of much use to you if you aren't alive.
-
An aside about Ron Paul: too many of his supporters--I don't mean the people here--are young people who like getting high and have no interest in serving in the military. It's not about idealism, it's about me-first. Unfortunately, that kind of escapism, while certainly reflecting the peace and prosperity bubble of the last half-century that most younger people have enjoyed, doesn't conform well with what lies ahead.
So you are saying that young people, who are overwhelmingly those who are expected to fight, are not happy about serving in a military where military service is synonymous not with defending their homeland but with treking around splodystan causing carnage, creating enemies, and protecting interests of megacorporation and not necessarily the States' interests, for a Federal government which will jail them for using their drug of choice, and which steals their wealth, uses it to finance these wars, and gives a roughly equal amount of it to old people who don't even have to fight in the military, and that this ridiculous pro-freedom, pro-American, indeed, pro-self-preservation position accounts for their support of Ron Paul?
Yeah, I would say that's about right.
-
lol.
That's about the short and skinny of it
-
So you are saying that young people, who are overwhelmingly those who are expected to fight, are not happy about serving in a military where military service is synonymous not with defending their homeland but with treking around splodystan causing carnage, creating enemies, and protecting interests of megacorporation and not necessarily the States' interests, for a Federal government which will jail them for using their drug of choice, and which steals their wealth, uses it to finance these wars, and gives a roughly equal amount of it to old people who don't even have to fight in the military, and that this ridiculous pro-freedom, pro-American, indeed, pro-self-preservation position accounts for their support of Ron Paul?
Yeah, I would say that's about right.
If you construe what I'm saying as a defense of ill-chosen and ill-strategized wars, you are quite mistaken. Far from it.
But I'm sorry if I don't buy that the support for Ron Paul among "the young" is based on idealism rather than, largely, on selfishness and hedonism. Young people today are the willing beneficiaries of all the "sins" of their elders. I see very few doing without the boons of the previous generations. As for fighting, their time will come, whether they like it or not; that is the legacy of human history.
-
oh sweet jeebus. i find myself in the curious position of agreeing with longeyes i read it twice looking for a loophole too. he sank the hook with these words "selfishness and hedonism. "
-
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
I do not consent anymore. Now what? >:D
-
I do not consent anymore. Now what? >:D
You're a violent extremist, naturally
-
Maybe I take a simplistic view of the matter, but I've always thought that liberty isn't of much use to you if you aren't alive.
While you have a point, plenty of folks have chosen to die for freedom, rather then live as slaves. So there are folks out there that put liberty above life.
-
But I'm sorry if I don't buy that the support for Ron Paul among "the young" is based on idealism rather than, largely, on selfishness and hedonism.
Can you show me a voting block which is not motivated by selfishness? It's always been a factor in voting and always will be. Put up a national referendum for eliminating Social Security and see how unselfish the Baby Boomers are.
-
At least the Baby Boomers and those before them have a work history. There are varying degrees of selfishness among humans, no dispute there.
-
While you have a point, plenty of folks have chosen to die for freedom, rather then live as slaves. So there are folks out there that put liberty above life.
I was thinking along the same lines. You can put life as some preeminent #1 above all others. What kind of life is there without the others?
-
Quote from: longeyes on January 22, 2012, 01:25:50 PM
More likely to come from Obama, that. He's pretty much there already.
***
An aside about Ron Paul: too many of his supporters--I don't mean the people here--are young people who like getting high and have no interest in serving in the military. It's not about idealism, it's about me-first. Unfortunately, that kind of escapism, while certainly reflecting the peace and prosperity bubble of the last half-century that most younger people have enjoyed, doesn't conform well with what lies ahead.
What you really mean is that that level of personal freedom is just a little too much for your comfort?
Looking at this response from earlier. IMO, that is exactly the kind of crazy response that turn people away from Paul and his supporters. You act like anyone who allows himself to question the great King Paul is against personal freedom. What a bunch of hogwash.
It is the personal freedom and govt spending stances that a lot of us like. What I question him on is some of his stances on foreign policy and some past commentary on Israel was a bit curious about. A guy on the radio here in Houston said he agrees with Paul on 90% to 95% of what he says, but that last 5% is hard to swallow.
-
Looking at this response from earlier. IMO, that is exactly the kind of crazy response that turn people away from Paul and his supporters. You act like anyone who allows himself to question the great King Paul is against personal freedom. What a bunch of hogwash.
It is the personal freedom and govt spending stances that a lot of us like. What I question him on is some of his stances on foreign policy and some past commentary on Israel was a bit curious about. A guy on the radio here in Houston said he agrees with Paul on 90% to 95% of what he says, but that last 5% is hard to swallow.
I think the immediate danger to our nation isn't from that last 5 percent.
-
I don't agree with Ron Paul on a number of things, but I respect him. There is a difference between Paul and, in my view, many of his supporters (note that I exempted people on this forum), mostly the younger ones. To them he is just another Candy Man, offering easy access to drugs, debt relief, and freedom from military service--not all that different from Obama really. I myself believe that Ron Paul's message is a far sterner one, but I don't expect many 25-year-olds who grew up in a time of unprecedented stuff and license to realize that.
-
What I see here are image politics - if you drive an Audi and read academic journals, you are supposed to like Obama. If you like NASCAR, you're supposed to like bush. And you can't like Ron Paul because some people who smoke weed also like him.
Image is a silly way to conduct politics. I'd much rather vote for actual policies, rather than worry about the dress and habits of other people who might vote in the same line.
-
freedom from military service
Come again ... ??? ??? ???
-
To them he is just another Candy Man, offering easy access to drugs, debt relief, and freedom from military service--not all that different from Obama really.
Debt relief?
-
Debt forgiveness, beginning with student loans--that's what I'm referring to.
-
Debt forgiveness, beginning with student loans--that's what I'm referring to.
This was a part of Ron Paul's program?
-
Debt forgiveness, beginning with student loans--that's what I'm referring to.
That one is news to me.....please show citations.....
-
Debt forgiveness, beginning with student loans--that's what I'm referring to.
This is the first I've heard of Ron Paul supporting this
-
won't find it here
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2011-10-27/ron-paul-budget-plan/50963452/1
-
What I said was: "To them he is just another Candy Man, offering easy access to drugs, debt relief, and freedom from military service--not all that different from Obama really. I myself believe that Ron Paul's message is a far sterner one, but I don't expect many 25-year-olds who grew up in a time of unprecedented stuff and license to realize that." In other words, that's the muddled perception of R.P. that many younger voters have, not his actual position. They see what they want to see.
-
What I said was: "To them he is just another Candy Man, offering easy access to drugs, debt relief, and freedom from military service--not all that different from Obama really. I myself believe that Ron Paul's message is a far sterner one, but I don't expect many 25-year-olds who grew up in a time of unprecedented stuff and license to realize that." In other words, that's the muddled perception of R.P. that many younger voters have, not his actual position. They see what they want to see.
So like every voter in human history?
-
So like every voter in human history?
All I want is to be left alone to try to prosper among other folks who are being left alone to try to prosper.
-
All I want is to be left alone to try to prosper among other folks who are being left alone to try to prosper.
That's selfish......
-
That's selfish......
I'm not overly interested in ingratiating myself with anyone ;)