Iowa Straw Poll Results

[Scout26]

1 - Michele Bachman
2 - Ron Paul
3 - Tim Pawlenty

Discuss amongst yourselves.

[lee n. field]

Go Ron.

[Jamisjockey]

Romney was last, even beaten by a write in (perry)....ouch!

[grey54956]

The media focuses on Romney.  They're pushing hard for him because they know Obama can beat him. 

Even Fox is pushing Romney.  If Obama beats him, they can keep running inflamatory headlines for another four years.  Obama bashing is entertainment, and they are making a mint from it.  With Ron in the White House, they'll only have the news.

[Balog]

Romney was last, even beaten by a write in (perry)....ouch!

Muahahahahahaha 

[RocketMan]

Pawlenty is out.  He decided to exit the race based on his poor showing in the Iowa straw poll.
I wonder who will be next to leave the race?  Cain, Gingrich, or Huntsman?

[MicroBalrog]

Ron Paul is by far the best candidate in this race, but he clearly won't win.

Any chance that Sarah Palin might throw her hat in the ring at this stage?

[Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas]

Any chance that Sarah Palin might throw her hat in the ring at this stage?

Pretty sure Palin's angling for a VP or cabinet position, and thus will not run.

[P5 Guy]

Palin and Bachman are poor choices for elected office in my opinion.
MB voted for the Patriot Act renewal, not my idea of a conservative thinker, also her crusade on porn. I guess she forgot to read that part of the constitution?
And on a personal note I'd rather have a candidate that leaves their religious beliefs at home even if they get to temporarily occupy 1600 Pennsylvania Ave

[Jamisjockey]

Palin and Bachman are poor choices for elected office in my opinion.
MB voted for the Patriot Act renewal, not my idea of a conservative thinker, also her crusade on porn. I guess she forgot to read that part of the constitution?
And on a personal note I'd rather have a candidate that leaves their religious beliefs at home even if they get to temporarily occupy 1600 Pennsylvania Ave

We could only hope, but the reality of the situation is that any GOP contender is going to be a Christian conservative.  Best we can hope for is that they recognize the country doesn't need to sort out gay marriage right now...

[Perd Hapley]

Best we can hope for is that they recognize the country doesn't need to sort out gay marriage right now...

You should have told that to the left about ten years ago.

And on a personal note I'd rather have a candidate that leaves their religious beliefs at home even if they get to temporarily occupy 1600 Pennsylvania Ave

Actually, religion is not a private hobby that one does at home and leaves there. Religion informs everything that a religious person does and believes, from politics to business. Asking a politician (or anyone else) to leave their religion at home is both impractical and offensive. If you don't want to vote for religious people, that's your right, but don't suppose for a moment that it would make any sense for a religious person to somehow avoid being religious when they serve the highest office in the land. That is exactly when they should be most committed to their principles.

[French G.]

Bachmann, pretty shrill and self righteous, I saw some news bite where she pandered to "the troops" and that was enough to make her dead to me.

RP, good for most stuff, would be a foreign policy disaster, because believe it or not when we bring all of "the troops" home and act all isolationist very bad things will result.

Perry, train wreck.

Pawlenty gone.

[P5 Guy]

I do understand that a deeply religious person cannot separate their religious belief from their personal agenda. Remembering that as a government official there is a mandate in the Constitution to separate the Church from the State.
As there are no Protestants in the Supreme Court. And JFK was going to give the Pope an office in the Whitehouse. Along with some other rantings from people with my mindset.
I'm appalled by the inability of the elected officials to keep the state's business out of the church ad the Church's business out of the State House. You cannot legislate a moral code that is consistent with the ideals of the Founding Fathers.
Just the opinions of an old fat guy.

[roo_ster]

You should have told that to the left about ten years ago.

Ayup.

Actually, religion is not a private hobby that one does at home and leaves there.

I suspect the reason we see such statements is the same reason we see some folks accuse the auto companies of hiding the 200MPH carburetor.

I do understand that a deeply religious person cannot separate their religious belief from their personal agenda.

Actually, it is vital (at least in teh Christian religion) to be able to distinguish between the two.

Remembering that as a government official there is a mandate in the Constitution to separate the Church from the State.

Care to help a fellow fat guy?  I can't find that, or any reasonable construction of the text that comes anywhere close to that in my copy of the COTUS.  Sadly, I have only the English copy with 7 Articles and 26-odd Amendments.

You cannot legislate a moral code that is consistent with the ideals of the Founding Fathers.

Oddly enough, many of the colonies/states managed to do just that, by enacting morally-based legislation up to and including established churches.

[Jamisjockey]

Fisty, my point is that fiscally we are in dire straights and will die as a nation if something isn't done to wean the dependent class off the system....spending time on religious issues right now is not a luxury we can afford.  If they break the system with the intent of starting over....gay marriage will be the least of your concerns.

[Perd Hapley]

The point you seem to be missing is that you can't blame the right for the marriage controversy, as it was the left that chose to make it an issue. If your view is that we should give the left everything they want, so we can focus on the economic issues, are you willing to give in on gun issues, and everything else not directly related to economics?

Maybe I'm missing some news item, here, as the only people talking about social issues lately are some disgruntled social liberals on this board. Why are you all so worried about this right now? Has Michelle Bachman been doing a bunch of gamocentric campaign speeches or something?

[AZRedhawk44]

I do understand that a deeply religious person cannot separate their religious belief from their personal agenda. Remembering that as a government official there is a mandate in the Constitution to separate the Church from the State.

I assume you are referencing the 1st Amendment to the COTUS?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Point #1 - Note that it mentions Congress.  Not the President.
Point #2 - Note that it says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
Point #3 - Note that it says Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.


A POTUS can be as religious or atheistic as he wants.  I don't care.

As long as he actively strives to get the government out of my bedroom, checkbook, confessional booth and physical health.

He can believe that baby jeebus is building sand castles on the moon until the next appearance of Haley's comet, for all I care.  Just don't use the power of Government's monopoly of force to compel me into decisions I otherwise wouldn't make.  If my choices are distasteful to a fundie, as long as they are actions that create no victims, it's no one else's problem but my own and no business of government.  GTFA&STFU.

Heck, I'd even go along with the Fistful For POTUS party if ol' Fisty would agree to act in a way fully in compliance with Amendment 1.  

But, he'd have to leave alone:
-Teh Gayzors
-The "Sacrament" of marriage (sacrament = manifestation of holiness... embodying any "sacrament" into law is an immediate 1st amendment violation)
-Abortion
-Flag burning (the other Grand Distraction to drive passionate idgit voters to the polls to vote for someone OTHER than a real-world problem solver)

He'd have plenty to tackle in four (or even eight) years:
-Budget
-Reduction of scope of government
-two wars
-Wo(s)D
-GWoT
-Patriot Act
-Space dominance
-Eliminating government-induced distortion on free markets
-Currency stabilization
-TSA


Frankly, I'm starting to think that we NEED 3 parties:

Dems: for the social leeches
GOP: for the fundies and RINOs
Tea Party: For the people that care about a lean, efficient, honorable government that is committed to making America THE global leader in liberty, industry, technology and exploration.  A party that protects and provides an eternal Western Expanse to continually explore and settle.

I expect that the Dems would lose a LOT of voters if there were an actual party that ran on the above 10 plank issues.  A lot of people are GOP-shy due to NeoCons and Fundies, but care about those 10 issues, or at least a subset of them.

The point you seem to be missing is that you can't blame the right for the marriage controversy, as it was the left that chose to make it an issue. If your view is that we should give the left everything they want, so we can focus on the economic issues, are you willing to give in on gun issues, and everything else not directly related to economics?

The point you're missing, fisty, is the marriage issue is structured as follows:
-Marriage tax breaks are in place due to McCarthy era legislation.  There is currently legislation that plays financial favorites between gays and straights.
-One solution to the problem is to give gays "marriage."  They can then get the tax breaks and other legal issues in one convenient swoop just like straights can, or else they have to go through a bunch of convoluted and expensive legal loops to obtain parity.
-The other solution is to abolish the government acknowledgement of "marriage" at all.  It can still be a private contract which provides the same legal resolutions, but as a private contract it opens it up to any two consenting parties.  Gay or straight.  And it also levels the tax playing field.


Jamis' and my point is:  Who the frak cares, in the context of the nation-crushing dilemna before us?  We have spine-breaking debt on top of us, with greater financial power than that of the combined might of the entire United States Armed Forces.

This is nation-crisis time.

And fundies want to get tunnel-vision on teh gayzors right now.

[AZRedhawk44]

It's like this, fistful:

There's a 300 pound former NFL linebacker with a prybar in his hands, getting ready to bust your kneecaps.

But, across the street, 2 gay guys are walking into your neighborhood church to get married.



Do you stop the gay guys, or do you deal with the 300 pound debt enforcer?

Priorities.

[Perd Hapley]

Remembering that as a government official there is a mandate in the Constitution to separate the Church from the State.

There's a sizable difference between the separation of Church and State, and a separation of belief and state. The one keeps two institutions from any formal entanglement, the latter discriminates against religious ideas. One follows the first amendment, the other violates it. Your seem to be heading toward that second category.

As there are no Protestants in the Supreme Court. And JFK was going to give the Pope an office in the Whitehouse. Along with some other rantings from people with my mindset.
I'm appalled by the inability of the elected officials to keep the state's business out of the church ad the Church's business out of the State House. You cannot legislate a moral code that is consistent with the ideals of the Founding Fathers.

I'm afraid I'd need some more explanation of the many different threads you have going on there, before I could respond to them.  

[TommyGunn]

"Gayzors"?    Have we been invaded by space aliens or something?  Why has no one told me? 

[gunsmith]

I would be sooooo thrilled with Palin as President, 4 yrs of hysterical fun at the expense of radlibs & their non religion religion. ... Plus I could probably afford to buy another gun when the economy picks up. I love Sarah!

[Perd Hapley]

It's like this, fistful:

There's a 300 pound former NFL linebacker with a prybar in his hands, getting ready to bust your kneecaps.

But, across the street, 2 gay guys are walking into your neighborhood church to get married.



Do you stop the gay guys, or do you deal with the 300 pound debt enforcer?

Priorities.

Did you even read the post you quoted? If you want to preach to someone about priorities, take it to the leftists that are the ones concentrating on marriage. Or to put it in your language:

There's a 300 pound former NFL linebacker with a prybar in his hands, getting ready to bust your kneecaps.

But, across the street, 2 gay guys are being turned away by your neighborhood church, where they wanted to get married.


Do you help the gay guys, or do you deal with the 300 pound debt enforcer?

Priorities.

[gunsmith]

Remembering that as a government official there is a mandate in the Constitution to separate the Church from the State.

Nope, there is a letter from Thomas Jefferson explaining to some worried church that there is a

wall of separation

, but the COTUS/BOR is basically saying there shall be no church of the USA. Period. That mandate you speak of is radlib BS propaganda rewriting hogwash

[Perd Hapley]

the COTUS/BOR is basically saying there shall be no church of the USA. Period.

Don't forget the part about the right to free exercise of religion.

[Perd Hapley]

Heck, I'd even go along with the Fistful For POTUS party if ol' Fisty would agree to act in a way fully in compliance with Amendment 1. 

But, he'd have to leave alone:
-Teh Gayzors

Done.

-The "Sacrament" of marriage (sacrament = manifestation of holiness... embodying any "sacrament" into law is an immediate 1st amendment violation)

Fail. Marriage is every bit as much a social and legal institution as it is a religious one. Maybe more so. The fact that a religion has rules about something (like murder, for instance) doesn't put it beyond the purview of government.

-Abortion

The murder thing I just mentioned.

-Flag burning (the other Grand Distraction to drive passionate idgit voters to the polls to vote for someone OTHER than a real-world problem solver)

Also done.

He'd have plenty to tackle in four (or even eight) years:
-Budget
-Reduction of scope of government
-two wars
-Wo(s)D
-GWoT
-Patriot Act
-Space dominance
-Eliminating government-induced distortion on free markets
-Currency stabilization
-TSA

You forgot the bacon subsidies.

Frankly, I'm starting to think that we NEED 3 parties:

Dems: for the social leeches
GOP: for the fundies and RINOs
Tea Party: For the people that care about a lean, efficient, honorable government that is committed to making America THE global leader in liberty, industry, technology and exploration.  A party that protects and provides an eternal Western Expanse to continually explore and settle.

You know a Tea Party without "fundies" is gonna be tiny, right? 

The point you're missing, fisty, is the marriage issue is structured as follows:
-Marriage tax breaks are in place due to McCarthy era legislation.  There is currently legislation that plays financial favorites between gays and straights.

False. Homosexuals have never been barred from marriage. Marriage, of course, is heterosexual.

-One solution to the problem is to give gays "marriage."  They can then get the tax breaks and other legal issues in one convenient swoop just like straights can, or else they have to go through a bunch of convoluted and expensive legal loops to obtain parity.
-The other solution is to abolish the government acknowledgement of "marriage" at all.  It can still be a private contract which provides the same legal resolutions, but as a private contract it opens it up to any two consenting parties.  Gay or straight.  And it also levels the tax playing field.

I thought you were going to ignore the issue and deal with the linebacker?    But here you are proposing "solutions" to non-problems.

And fundies want to get tunnel-vision on teh gayzors right now.

No, it's some fundie-fobes on this board that keep talking about it.