THE RESULTS: Santorum finished ahead by 34 votes
MISSING DATA: 8 precincts’ numbers will never be certified
PARTY VERDICT: GOP official says, ‘It’s a split decision’
Rick Santorum – Final total: 29,839 Change: -168
Mitt Romney – Final total: 29,805 Change: -210
It’s a tie for the ages.There are too many holes in the certified totals from the Iowa caucuses to know for certain who won, but Rick Santorum wound up with a 34-vote advantage.
Results from eight precincts are missing — any of which could hold an advantage for Mitt Romney — and will never be recovered and certified, Republican Party of Iowa officials told The Des Moines Register on Wednesday.
GOP officials discovered inaccuracies in 131 precincts, although not all the changes affected the two leaders. Changes in one precinct alone shifted the vote by 50 — a margin greater than the certified tally.
HEY! WHO CARES! ANYBODY BUT OBAMA, AMIRITE!?!?!?
Any of the current crop of GOPers would be an improvement.
Oh hell no... that's just not true. What, is having an (R) behind your name some kind of cleansing magical symbol? There are some in there that would be equal, if not worse. Some in there WOULD follow suit with Obama's transgressions on the Constitution, maybe even expand on them, the only difference being that "we" would let our guard down and turn a blind eye, only because the person in question is labeled a "conservative", whatever that means these days.
Amen.
After all, it was an (R) president with an (R) Congress and an (R) senate who gave us the patriot act, went several years without even considering a balanced budget, and got us involved in two simultaneous land wars.
Of course, when the Dems took control of both houses, then the budget problems are their fault? Huh.
If you're going to hell, should you be more concerned about the vehicle you're arriving in, or the destination itself? Just sayin.
Oh hell no... that's just not true. What, is having an (R) behind your name some kind of cleansing magical symbol? There are some in there that would be equal, if not worse. Some in there WOULD follow suit with Obama's transgressions on the Constitution, maybe even expand on them, the only difference being that "we" would let our guard down and turn a blind eye, only because the person in question is labeled a "conservative", whatever that means these days.
If the **** demorats won't turn the car around, then you atleast stop supporting them. The repukeagains atleast try ....or give a few talking points .... to using the brakes. They've been better at some times than others.
Or alternatly, make sure you have asbestos underwear. >:D :facepalm: :facepalm: [tinfoil]
Someone who *TALKS* about how it's necessary to hit the brakes and turn the car around, while mashing on the accelerator and steering straight in the same direction we've been going, is *NOT* our friend. He is *NOT* better than "the other guys". Talk is NOTHING. Show me some freaking ACTION! :mad:
Paul has at least been actively trying to turn the car around and hit the brakes. The other (R) candidates? Yeah, not so much. :facepalm: Tell me again why I should vote for NewtRomRick? Oh, right - because otherwise, my vote is "wasted" - if not an outright vote for Obama. ;/ No thanks. I'm not voting for the guys who TALK about hitting the brakes and turning the car around. I'll vote for someone who's ACTED to do so, even though others continue to wrest the wheel out of his hands and stomp on the accelerator.
Like Micro said - it's really not that complicated. Want liberty? VOTE FOR IT! Don't cast a vote for more-of-the-same, and then wonder why you get more of the freaking same!
On the contrary, anybody can fix America. The user manual is right there. (http://constitution.org/constit_.htm)
All you need to do is start vetoing, repealing, and pardoning.
Statism is complex.
It is like the decision to have a tree in your yard. You need to choose the right kind of tree - cedar? oak? maple? The right arborist, the right soil, the right location. If you want to have a cedar tree, and then plant a maple, you screwed up the tree project. Even on its own terms, for big government to succeed the right people must be in charge.
For those of us opposed to the welfare state, it's like the decision not to plant a tree at all. There's no need for a proficient arborist... you just don't plant it.
I wish this were true, but when you say "all you need to do..." you ignore that fact that there's no "you" there any more in the way you seem to think. We the People are now We the Peoples, and that was all along the agenda of the Left in America. We have lost the cultural homogeneity we once had. To ignore this and continuing demographic and philosophical fragmentation is to ignore social reality. The GOP candidates have the manual but they don't have the troops. My view is we can save some of America or save a new America but not America as a whole any more. To believe in an "indivisible" America, to continue to talk of our polity as "united," either now or in the future, is self-destructively naive. "We" and "they" are miles apart and never the twain shall meet.
Someone who *TALKS* about how it's necessary to hit the brakes and turn the car around, while mashing on the accelerator and steering straight in the same direction we've been going, is *NOT* our friend. He is *NOT* better than "the other guys". Talk is NOTHING. Show me some freaking ACTION! :mad:To whom are you refering now, Bush or Obama? Bush was no friend but Obama has added 5 trillion $$ to our debt in far less time than Shrubbie added his $.
Paul has at least been actively trying to turn the car around and hit the brakes. The other (R) candidates? Yeah, not so much. :facepalm: Tell me again why I should vote for NewtRomRick? Oh, right - because otherwise, my vote is "wasted" - if not an outright vote for Obama. ;/ No thanks. I'm not voting for the guys who TALK about hitting the brakes and turning the car around. I'll vote for someone who's ACTED to do so, even though others continue to wrest the wheel out of his hands and stomp on the accelerator.
Like Micro said - it's really not that complicated. Want liberty? VOTE FOR IT! Don't cast a vote for more-of-the-same, and then wonder why you get more of the freaking same!
The problem with Iowa was that the news was so freaking pushy to get an answer before 9pm.
To whom are you refering now, Bush or Obama? Bush was no friend but Obama has added 5 trillion $$ to our debt in far less time than Shrubbie added his $.
You can vote for whatever Jackwagon you want to. You can "waste" your vote and vote Ron Paul. You will feel good about having done the right thing but come Wednesday morning he won't be the president elect.
Go find one poll that allows any reasonable person to conclude R. Paul has a snowball's chance in h3ll. And do it without whining about how "if people would just vote for who is the right person/stop voting fo the 'leesor of evils' blah blah blah." I didn't construct the reality we live in and the fact Paul polls in single digits is not by my design, nor do I have the power to change it.
If R. Paul's foreign policy weren't so dangerously unrealistic I would support him, and I suspect a great many people would also. I actually do like many of his economic ideas.
Do you REALLY believe if Ron Paul we're president, he could change things?? [popcorn]
Remember one thing. "The president proposes, the kongress disposes." An old bromide there, meaning that, atleast in this case, President Ron Paul is going to have ....wait for it ..... wait for it.....
......
0% support in kongress.
Now he can flap his gums all he wants. Do you really think pols like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Charlie Schumer are going to give a rat's petoot of support for his programs?
And if you think the repukes will you're smoking something that should be by prescription only. Ron Paul is only a R by default.
So, sorry, even should Paul become president, he ain't gonna accomplish one thing.
And don't tell me a nation of entitlement-sated sheeple are going to rise up and support Paul and force kongress to act, either. I don't do political comedy on weekends.
As I said, you can vote for whomever you like. Me, I shall, as always, vote the lesser of evils. Don't like that? Tough. Will I sleep at night after I do it?
Better than I will if I don't .......
But, unless real conservatives take over kongress in a fell swoop, we're toast.
It's over.
Finished.
The president alone can't do friggin' diddly.
Are we all feeling all warm and fuzzy now?
Enjoy it while you can --- ain't gonna last!! >:D
I wish this were true, but when you say "all you need to do..." you ignore that fact that there's no "you" there any more in the way you seem to think. We the People are now We the Peoples, and that was all along the agenda of the Left in America.
I think you severely overestimate both our current divisions and our historical unity.
America has, since before it's inception, been made up of disparate groups that disagreed on most everything, and had no desire to be changed.
Ron Paul won't have any support in congress therefore we shouldn't elect him
How, precisely, does one effect change?
I say, it's getting a libertarian in the presidency, in conjunction with the CONTINUED fight to get them in a lot of other places as well, including congress and the senate.
To imply that we should support someone who is doing stupid things just because they can win....
well, that's the reason we're in the mess we're in, and it has to stop some time. Or not. But if the republic falls, I'm not going to be the one who helped it along by continuing to vote in statist douchebags and RINOs
You touch upon the germ of a plan that might work. Get enough like-minded people who will support Paul (or a Paul-like offspring/follower/junior type) who will support a libertarian president. A good plan for the future.
In '92 Ross Perot drew away enough republican voters to give us eight years of Slick Willie. And, yes, the Perot voters also "put" Clinton in office just as though they had actually voted for him.
If something similar happens this go-'round, and thus we wind up with four more years of Obama because those who might have opposed him were drawn off to cast a useless vote for a non-possibility like Paul, they too will have put Obama in office, just as if they'd voted for him.
How do your principles feel about putting Obama back in the White House?
>:D
Just saying....
There are consequences.
That "mainstream candidates" should alter their points of view to attract Paul voters is silly -- there aren't enough Paul voters to make a large enough difference. It's a numbers game.
And, if they did, what would that say about their principles? :police:
That "mainstream candidates" should alter their points of view to attract Paul voters is silly -- there aren't enough Paul voters to make a large enough difference. It's a numbers game.
And, if they did, what would that say about their principles? :police:
drawn off to cast a useless vote for a non-possibility like Paul,Quotethey too will have put Obama in office, just as if they'd voted for him.
There's NOT ENOUGHR.PAULROMNEY VOTERS TO PUT HIM IN OFFICE.
There may be ENOUGH POSSIBLER. PAUL VOTERSRomney Voters TO HAND VICTORY TO OBAMA.
I see what you are saying. There are not enough votes to put Romney into office. Therefore, everyone else should drop their guy, and their principles, and vote for Romney. ;):facepalm:
I expect to hear a similar line of reasoning out of the Newt camp shortly.
=D
I am kinda jokng with that FTFY, but the point remains that the republicans don't really have anyone in the field that will blow Obama away in the general election. It's going to be a close race, so it would behoove whoever the (R) nominee is to build a coalition that acknowledges and includes the libertarian leaning folks, instead of belittling them.
The president alone can't do friggin' diddly.
Now, longeyes asked me to describe what he calls a Paulestinian America.
I will do this because I think this is a golden opportunity for me to clearly explain my position.
Imagine here a completely fictional universe, in which Ron Paul Or Someone Quite Like him has won the Republican Primaries. Again, this is unlikely.
Imagine that Ron Paul* is revealed the winner of the Republican primaries.
Swiftly, the liberal media commence their assault on Ron Paul*. Because Ron Paul* is known to be a generally non-corrupt politician, most of these attacks will not be on his character, but on his view. Most of the right-wing media (commentators, pundits, etc.) will probably defend Ron Paul* from these attacks, if only out of party loyalty. This will begin a national debate on what is really the main issue of our time - whether we want a welfare state or whether we want constitutionally limited government that respects individual right - a 'conservative' or 'broadly libertarian' system, if you like.
Ron Paul*, of course, will not shy away from his debate - this is why he is here, after all. To fill these shoes, a man must really believe in the notion of limited government, and be able to defend it unashamedly, in front of the cameras, come what may. The liberal media are not prepared, intellectually or culturally, to struggle with this form of flat-out attack on their values. They are prepared - indeed their entire civilization depends on - the notion that they will only contend with people who are obsessed with looking reasonable. They can fight Gingrich, they are better at fighting John McCain. With Ron Paul*, their best survival mechanism is avoidance -trying to smother the revolutionary from media access. That won't work if the revolutionary is a Presidential candidate.
In the same way, Ron Paul* would debate the Democratic Candidate. No longer would this be a fight between "raise taxes 1%" and "raise taxes 50% and eat the rich". This would be a debated between Barack Obama and someone who looks into the camera, unashamed, and says: "Abolish the graduated income tax and replace it with nothing."
This is going to be a fight. Polls suggest that about 12% of Americans are libertarians in a broad sense, but more people can be persuaded to vote for Ron Paul* with the correct marketing - party loyalty ("will you let Obama appoint judges? Ron Paul might be bad on terorrism but we can't let Obama win!"), or niche-based benefits ("Ron Paul will protect complementary medicine users from FDA intervention!" will bring many hippies over, and so will "Ron Paul will legalize marijuana").
If the campaign loses, will still shift what the political mainstream is in this country, in ways Ron Paul, the Congressman from Texas, already did.
If it wins... oh, then we are entering the interesting territory:
Paulestinian America.
Envision now President Ron Paul*. Of course, he would order American troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan (forget that they are already leaving), and out of the many military bases around the world. Perhaps it would be possible for the Pentagon to persuade him to keep some of them, but generally this will probably be the case. America's international standing will be, of course damaged in a variety of ways. There is not a doubt about that. This is a downside, and we are all aware of it.
Here's where the real fun starts.
1. Executive orders. The actual Congressman Ron Paul promised - and indeed President Ron Paul* no doubt would - repeal dozens of Executive orders and Federal regulatons. The import bans on 'assault weapons'? Gone. The impositions on kitchen-table dealers? Gone. In fact it is even possible to do even more - under the Gun Control Act - to recclassify models of firearms away from the NFA and into Title I, to order the BATFE to enact a registration amnesty for NFA firearms, and so forth. This is entirely legal (to the extent BATFE is legal) and within the executive office's purview.
2. The pardon power. Thousands of innocent people are in prison for victimless crimes. From - at least - a libertarian perspective, a person in prison for a victimless crime is an innocent man in prison. If there are innocent men in prison it is a moral prime directive to set them free - and, from a Constitutional point of view it is not outside the President's authority to free all of these people at once.
3. The veto power. No, the President cannot veto everthing. But if President Ron Paul* vetoes everything he can, that would at least stop a large part of the evil acts of modern government, force Congress to compromise, and stop things like the Patriot Act, that require reauthorization.
4. The bully pulpit. A victory by President Ron Paul* would no doubt be a strong message to Congress, and a President Ron Paul* would be able to appeal to the American people (using State of the Union addresses and other opportunities) on behalf of freedom. He would not accomplish all of his goals, but he would accomplish far more, and his victory would no doubt also propel more freedom-friendly candidates into office.
In short, a President Ron Paul* can do far more than is commonly estimated, merely because he is willing to do far more than a President Cain* (much less President McCain)* would.
*Or Someone Quite Like Him
To whom are you refering now, Bush or Obama? Bush was no friend but Obama has added 5 trillion $$ to our debt in far less time than Shrubbie added his $.
You can vote for whatever Jackwagon you want to. You can "waste" your vote and vote Ron Paul. You will feel good about having done the right thing but come Wednesday morning he won't be the president elect.
Go find one poll that allows any reasonable person to conclude R. Paul has a snowball's chance in h3ll. And do it without whining about how "if people would just vote for who is the right person/stop voting fo the 'leesor of evils' blah blah blah." I didn't construct the reality we live in and the fact Paul polls in single digits is not by my design, nor do I have the power to change it.
If R. Paul's foreign policy weren't so dangerously unrealistic I would support him, and I suspect a great many people would also. I actually do like many of his economic ideas.
Do you REALLY believe if Ron Paul we're president, he could change things?? [popcorn]
Remember one thing. "The president proposes, the kongress disposes." An old bromide there, meaning that, atleast in this case, President Ron Paul is going to have ....wait for it ..... wait for it.....
......
0% support in kongress.
Now he can flap his gums all he wants. Do you really think pols like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Charlie Schumer are going to give a rat's petoot of support for his programs?
And if you think the repukes will you're smoking something that should be by prescription only. Ron Paul is only a R by default.
So, sorry, even should Paul become president, he ain't gonna accomplish one thing.
And don't tell me a nation of entitlement-sated sheeple are going to rise up and support Paul and force kongress to act, either. I don't do political comedy on weekends.
As I said, you can vote for whomever you like. Me, I shall, as always, vote the lesser of evils. Don't like that? Tough. Will I sleep at night after I do it?
Better than I will if I don't .......
But, unless real conservatives take over kongress in a fell swoop, we're toast.
It's over.
Finished.
The president alone can't do friggin' diddly.
Are we all feeling all warm and fuzzy now?
Enjoy it while you can --- ain't gonna last!! >:D
You touch upon the germ of a plan that might work. Get enough like-minded people who will support Paul (or a Paul-like offspring/follower/junior type) who will support a libertarian president. A good plan for the future.
In '92 Ross Perot drew away enough republican voters to give us eight years of Slick Willie. And, yes, the Perot voters also "put" Clinton in office just as though they had actually voted for him.
If something similar happens this go-'round, and thus we wind up with four more years of Obama because those who might have opposed him were drawn off to cast a useless vote for a non-possibility like Paul, they too will have put Obama in office, just as if they'd voted for him.
How do your principles feel about putting Obama back in the White House?
>:D
Just saying....
There are consequences.
That "mainstream candidates" should alter their points of view to attract Paul voters is silly -- there aren't enough Paul voters to make a large enough difference. It's a numbers game.
And, if they did, what would that say about their principles? :police:
:facepalm:
You know, fine.....
Vote for Ron Paul, vote for Ziggy, Mr. Rogers, Friar Tuck, Pee Wee Herman, Kermit The Frog, whatever.
What it will take for a republican victory will be a candidate who runs an aggressive campaign and articulates conservatism clearly, plainly and positively. A candidate who is not afraid to go after Obama and his failing policies.
"In a perfect world" any candidate ought to be able to defeat Obama .... OTOH if we had a perfect world Obama would not be the president.
What does it say when one's principles put a failed leader back in office?
This is called "making the perfect the enemy of the good." Now if that's the type of politics you wish to indulge in, fine.
Because you want perfect immediate change you can't vote for slightly slower imperfect change, thus resulting in utter annihilation. It's sort of like booking passage on the "Titanic" (knowing what will happen) because you just can't stand the smelly beds in the tramp steamer which has a captain smart enough to avoid the icebergs.
I am kinda jokng with that FTFY, but the point remains that the republicans don't really have anyone in the field that will blow Obama away in the general election. It's going to be a close race, so it would behoove whoever the (R) nominee is to build a coalition that acknowledges and includes the libertarian leaning folks, instead of belittling them.
I'm curious which group is bigger the Libertarian leaners or the Christian right?
I see what you are saying. There are not enough votes to put Romney into office. Therefore, everyone else should drop their guy, and their principles, and vote for Romney. ;)
I expect to hear a similar line of reasoning out of the Newt camp shortly.
=D
I am kinda jokng with that FTFY, but the point remains that the republicans don't really have anyone in the field that will blow Obama away in the general election. It's going to be a close race, so it would behoove whoever the (R) nominee is to build a coalition that acknowledges and includes the libertarian leaning folks, instead of belittling them.
I think the Newt campaign might be smart/shrewd enough to find a spot for RP. Asking him to be the treas. sec. would convince a lot of folks to hold their noses at the poll.
:facepalm:
You know, fine.....
Vote for Ron Paul, vote for Ziggy, Mr. Rogers, Friar Tuck, Pee Wee Herman, Kermit The Frog, whatever.
What it will take for a republican victory will be a candidate who runs an aggressive campaign and articulates conservatism clearly, plainly and positively. A candidate who is not afraid to go after Obama and his failing policies.
"In a perfect world" any candidate ought to be able to defeat Obama .... OTOH if we had a perfect world Obama would not be the president.
What does it say when one's principles put a failed leader back in office?
This is called "making the perfect the enemy of the good." Now if that's the type of politics you wish to indulge in, fine.
Because you want perfect immediate change you can't vote for slightly slower imperfect change, thus resulting in utter annihilation. It's sort of like booking passage on the "Titanic" (knowing what will happen) because you just can't stand the smelly beds in the tramp steamer which has a captain smart enough to avoid the icebergs.
but the point remains that the republicans don't really have anyone in the field that will blow Obama away in the general election. It's going to be a close race, so it would behoove whoever the (R) nominee is to build a coalition that acknowledges and includes the libertarian leaning folks, instead of belittling them.
How sad that you'd (apparently) rather your vote went to "the winner", rather than the better candidate, the one more concerned with liberty and federal compliance with the Constitution.
A vote for the better candidate is *NEVER* wasted, even if that candidate doesn't come close to winning. And people like me are the only way the (R) wing of the Modern American Political Machine is ***EVER*** going to change for the better. When you and people like you continue to vote for more-of-the-same, that's what you'll get.
And you lose any moral right to complain about getting it.
What, staying out of other nations' actual internal-sovereignty issues? How DARE the man believe in that!!!
Who else has supported such nonsense, in our nation's history? Oh, here're a few:
"Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; "-- George Washington (Farewell Address, 1796)
"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none." (Thomas Jefferson)
"....but she {the United States} goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy."
- John Quincy Adams
I don't know, seems like pretty good advice to me. TR seems to have good advice in this respect as well - "Speak softly, and carry a big stick." If attacked, we knock 'em flat. If not, we stay out.
Why is this so hard a notion to fathom, for so many?
BULL.
*CLINTON'S* voters put Clinton in office. Perot's voters preferred what Perot had to offer to what Bush The Elder was peddling. That's a failure on the part of the REPUBLICANS, and no one else.
Own it..
If NewtRickRom can't persuade Paul's supporters to support him, ***HE DESERVES TO FREAKING LOSE TO OBAMA***. And it'll be the REPUBLICANS' fault, not Paul's.
You want my vote? YOU FREAKING EARN IT. And you don't do that by being not QUITE as big a statist bastard as the guy on the other side of the Modern American Political Machine, the one with a (D) behind his name. You do it by being the OPPOSITE of a statist bastard. A tiny bit less isn't enough, not any more. A *LOT* less might not cut it.
Thanks for completely ignoring this part of my post:Quotebut the point remains that the republicans don't really have anyone in the field that will blow Obama away in the general election. It's going to be a close race, so it would behoove whoever the (R) nominee is to build a coalition that acknowledges and includes the libertarian leaning folks, instead of belittling them.
Libertarianism would probably gain a bigger foothold if it would give up on drug legalization. Many people don't like the drug war and want a change, but that doesn't mean they're lusting for drug legalization. It turns off a LOT of people who might otherwise be more willing to come aboard.
As for repubs courting libertarians to "build a coalition." ???
Find a way to do it without losing the base.
The ball's in your court, not mine.....
Libertarianism doesn't really have a William F. Buckley exlusionist at the helm. And thank God.
Libertarians are part of the "base". And someone is already losing it.
It is not sad at all, it's simply realistic. The point is to vote NOT for the "best" candidate (a subjective term anyway; don't forget the Obamabots think Obama will be the best candidate) but the best candidate who has a real chance to win.
"...people like me are the only way the (R) wing of the Modern American Political Machine is ***EVER*** going to change for the better...." Wow. I had no idea you were so important to the country!!!!!! [tinfoil]
I'm not really too surprised that my ideas go over like a ton of bricks here. Trying to point out political realities has never been popular. What I am surprised about is that so many people here think Paul is some sort of golden pure Constitutionalist or something. He decries all the pork spending but he has almost never missed a chance to pull that stuff himself.
You really never lose a "moral right to complain."
That is called "freedom of speech." It's in the first amendment.
And because I may have voted for someone you dispise doesn't mean I voted for
There is an element of sanctimony there .....you may wish to check it.......
What "internal soveignty" issues are you talking about?
Your "quotes from the founders" are all nice and peachy -- and represent a idealistic point of view. We do not however live in an idealistic world. The foudners sent the navy after the Barbary Pirates in the early 1800s. That was "going abroad in search of monsters" in my book. We didn't even have to look too hard, we found the monsters pretty quick, too.
Ron Paul's "blame America first" foreign policies are dangerous and antithetical to a strong defense of this country. It is really sad that after we were attacked on 9/11/01 there are still so many people who hock this cr@pola about how it's America's fault and that we have no business over there, we should just pull out and leave them alone. That's what we were doing September 10, 2001.
I'd be in favor of pulling out if it were to free A'stan for a dozen or so well targeted nukes. However I sincerely doubt any political leader is going to use them.
Sorry. While it is true that Clinton's voters put him in office, it's also true that Perot drew enough voters away from Bush to tip the scales.
It's people like YOU who won't "own" the fact that there are consequences to cutting the political pie into too many small pieces. If you want a good read on it I suggest you find a copy of Machiavelli's Discourses on Livy, as he gives a great thesis on what happens when idealism trumps political reality and slices the pie thinly.
So, again, you want the perfect at the exclusion of the possible, which will result in the terrible...... :facepalm:
Obviously I am not going to make any headway here though .....
so, have fun at the election booth. =D
"Caesar si vivevet ad remun da resis."
Libertarianism would probably gain a bigger foothold if it would give up on drug legalization. Many people don't like the drug war and want a change, but that doesn't mean they're lusting for drug legalization. It turns off a LOT of people who might otherwise be more willing to come aboard.
As for repubs courting libertarians to "build a coalition." ???
Find a way to do it without losing the base.
The ball's in your court, not mine.....
I'm curious which group is bigger the Libertarian leaners or the Christian right?
As for repubs courting libertarians to "build a coalition."
Find a way to do it without losing the base.
The ball's in your court, not mine.....
You know, fine.....
Vote for Ron Paul, vote for Ziggy, Mr. Rogers, Friar Tuck, Pee Wee Herman, Kermit The Frog, whatever.
I think the Newt campaign might be smart/shrewd enough to find a spot for RP. Asking him to be the treas. sec. would convince a lot of folks to hold their noses at the poll.
Umm, yeah, the whole point *IS* to vote for your own personal "best" candidate, and yes, different people will have different ideas of who's the "best candidate". Honestly, if you really feel that NewtRickRom *IS* the best candidate, my issues with your casting your vote for him (whichever one you prefer) pretty much go away. I might disagree with your choice, but if you TRULY FEEL that your choice is the best candidate, as opposed to "the best one that has a chance to win", well, that's definitely your choice to make.Well, sorreeeee.
So's the other choice, come to think of it. I just think it's a craven betrayal of the way the system is supposed to work.
Missed how I said "people ***LIKE*** me" (emphasis added, since you seem to have missed that even though you QUOTED it)? ;/
What is the difference between you and "like you?"
Individually, I'm not important at all to this country, and don't delude myself that I am. What I believe, on the other hand, *IS* that important.
Far better than anybody else in the race (at least in connection with the (R)'s or (D)'s, certainly). Weren't you the one not too long ago telling us how we shouldn't be too wrapped up in pursuing perfection at the cost of the good?
Sure you do. Doesn't necessarily stop you from doing so anyways, but you lose the moral authority to be taken seriously.
Yeah, I'll get right on that, since you brought it up.
Get back to me when you've dealt with your hypocrisy, and we can compare notes.
Ouch. Where ???. I mean, not just where we disagree-- which is everywhere .....
Oh, maybe the right to not have other nations poke their noses into their territory? To develop their own nation as they see fit, as long as they don't attack others? Face it - America's got a pretty bad record on that score.
Our record is hardly perfect but it's pretty damned good overall. Far, far better than many european countries and Asian countries.
Oh, I was *SO* hoping you'd decide to go there, with the Barbary pirates! Thanks! =D
You *ARE* aware that the Barbary pirates ATTACKED American shipping and endangered our legitimate national and commercial interests, right? And as such, they EARNED our actions to deal with them? They attacked, and we acted to stop their wrongful acts. Just a *LITTLE* bit different than you seem to have imagined...
Not at all -- it's exactly what I imagined. The Barbary Pirates attacked our shipping ....Al Qaeda attacked us as well. I am surprised you didn't think I was aware of THAT. The whole point was that the Barbary pirates attacked us through our shippong and radical islam attacked us through the 9/11 attacks.
Because it makes so much sense to nuke a bunch of Afghan goatherds for what expat-Saudi terrorists did... ;/
It makes a lot of sense to attack Al Qaeda and it's allies for what Al Qaeda did. You know, we had not an ounce of squemishness about bombing the **** out of Japan and Germany in WW2 and we killed plenty of noncombatants. It may not be pleasant that there's collateral damage, but had the Islamists NOT attacked us in the first place, no one would have to be worrying about dead goatherders.
And like I said, that's the fault of the REPUBLICANS, who failed to earn those peoples' votes. Despite what the Modern American Political Machine seems to believe, neither wing of it owns *ANYONE'S* vote. Just like every other political party, they have to EARN THEM.
Why on EARTH should I vote for someone who promises to do everything I'm antithetically-opposed to, if a tiny bit slower than the OTHER half of the Modern American Political Machine does? Screw them. If they want my vote, and the vote of people like me, like other Paul supporters, like Perot's supporters - they can either adopt the more-important of the positions we want, or they can freaking well do WITHOUT our votes.
I reiterate - the Republicans need to OWN their failure to defeat Clinton - because THEY FAILED to earn the votes of enough people. THEY failed. It's nobody's fault but theirs.
Haven't been paying attention, I see. No surprise, I suppose...
If you expect my willing support for statist bastards to continue running our nation into the ground? Yeah, you're pretty much doomed to disappointment there.
Fun? No, probably not. But I'll go, and vote for the candidate I believe would be best for the country. And I'll sleep just fine as a result of sticking to principle.
Nope. I might be dead, but my corpse, even if chained to an oar, is not me. And the other possibility is that I would *NOT* be chained to an oar. Thanks for wishing slavery on me, though! That might be the most honest you've been with me in the last couple of days!
You ARE aware that, with this modern Internet thing, even those of us who don't read or write Latin can easily find out what it means?
Well, I GOT that quote from off the internet so I ought not be too surprised to find it can be used to translate it.
The point is you are pretending to fight against big government but inadvertantly taking choices which allow it to grow bigger and threraten our liberties even worse.
Cause God forbid we permit other people to do things we don't personally approve of, EVEN IF they harm no one else as a result! ;/
The users of illegal drugs hurt others all the time, in case you haven't been paying attention. Hell man, people who use LEGAL drugs (alcohol) hurt people all the time.
How many people get themselves hooked on some illegal drug and wind up stealing $$ in a life of crime to support their habit?
Sure, a lot of people just smoke a little marijuana and never hurt anyone.
But in the minds of many Americans it isn't as simple as you present it. And you're dreaming if you think Americans will accept it as a political platform they want to see in power.
A lot of damage has been done to our rights in the attempt to quash illegal drugs. At the root of the problem is not drugs but the fact we at best pay only lip service to our founding documents.
This has to be altered. And unfortunatly the only way I see to do it is gradually, not suddenly. Ron Paul has a lot of good economic ideas, but his foreign policy is bad, and like most libertarians, his drug policies just will not be accepted by Americans at this point.
If you want to build coalitions, then start by trying to convince enough American voters Ron Paul's way is right.
I don't think it can be done.
The political reality is that he doesn't have enough support in America to be elected over Obama.
That means the path to solutions for our problems does not, cannot lie, with his candidacy.
That's just a fact. Like it or not.
Our solutions will have to come from elsewhere.
And elsewhere stinks almost as bad as where we are....but it is a step better.
You and yours are the ones who want *OUR* votes. That makes it *YOUR SIDE'S* job to build the coalition. And you're doing a spectacularly bad job so far, as usual for the (R)'s.
What is the difference between you and "like you?"
Ouch. Where . I mean, not just where we disagree-- which is everywhere .....
Our record is hardly perfect but it's pretty damned good overall. Far, far better than many european countries and Asian countries.
Not at all -- it's exactly what I imagined. The Barbary Pirates attacked our shipping ....Al Qaeda attacked us as well. I am surprised you didn't think I was aware of THAT. The whole point was that the Barbary pirates attacked us through our shippong and radical islam attacked us through the 9/11 attacks.
It makes a lot of sense to attack Al Qaeda and it's allies for what Al Qaeda did. You know, we had not an ounce of squemishness about bombing the **** out of Japan and Germany in WW2 and we killed plenty of noncombatants. It may not be pleasant that there's collateral damage, but had the Islamists NOT attacked us in the first place, no one would have to be worrying about dead goatherders.
Well, I GOT that quote from off the internet so I ought not be too surprised to find it can be used to translate it.
The point is you are pretending to fight against big government but inadvertantly taking choices which allow it to grow bigger and threraten our liberties even worse.
The users of illegal drugs hurt others all the time, in case you haven't been paying attention. Hell man, people who use LEGAL drugs (alcohol) hurt people all the time.
How many people get themselves hooked on some illegal drug and wind up stealing $$ in a life of crime to support their habit?
Sure, a lot of people just smoke a little marijuana and never hurt anyone.
But in the minds of many Americans it isn't as simple as you present it.
And you're dreaming if you think Americans will accept it as a political platform they want to see in power.
A lot of damage has been done to our rights in the attempt to quash illegal drugs. At the root of the problem is not drugs but the fact we at best pay only lip service to our founding documents.
This has to be altered. And unfortunatly the only way I see to do it is gradually, not suddenly. Ron Paul has a lot of good economic ideas, but his foreign policy is bad, and like most libertarians, his drug policies just will not be accepted by Americans at this point.
If you want to build coalitions, then start by trying to convince enough American voters Ron Paul's way is right.
I don't think it can be done.
The political reality is that he doesn't have enough support in America to be elected over Obama.
That means the path to solutions for our problems does not, cannot lie, with his candidacy.
That's just afactstrongly-held personal opinion. Like it or not.
Our solutions will have to come from elsewhere.
And elsewhere stinks almost as bad as where we are....but it is a step better.
Well, sorreeeee.
But I am a voter, not a coalition builder.
But the one thing I admit I have done is set a spectacularly bad tone in this thread. Obviously we have very different political philosophies and I allowed my reaction color how I responded.
I can't withdraw my opinion that I consider your political strategies wrongheaded, and I hardly expect you to to change your opinions, either. Obviously you've thought out a position and are "sticking to your guns," as I intend to.
I hope we can, however, agree we both want a better country and a decent solution to the problems which are threatening its future.
Sorry for the "rough edges" .. ....
I like how the standard is different.
For voters to put their support with Ron Paul, he has to be perfect in every way. Any aspect of his policy that can be found, which is less than ideal, is grounds for not supporting him.
On the other hand, for people to support Romney, he can have millions of provable less-than-ideal aspects of his policy; he doesn't even have to be better than Obama...he just needs to be Not Obama, and voters will rally behind him.
This is entirely as predicted, though, because it's expected that the "lesser of two evils" sheep will vote in literally anyone the GOP wants, just to vote against Obama. If there was a clone of Obama, they would literally vote in Obama just to vote against Obama. I'm just amused at how this type of thinking seems to ooze into discussions and evaluations of the candidates themselves, like a reality distortion field.
I like how the standard is different.
For voters to put their support with Ron Paul, he has to be perfect in every way. Any aspect of his policy that can be found, which is less than ideal, is grounds for not supporting him.
On the other hand, for people to support Romney, he can have millions of provable less-than-ideal aspects of his policy; he doesn't even have to be better than Obama...he just needs to be Not Obama, and voters will rally behind him.
This is entirely as predicted, though, because it's expected that the "lesser of two evils" sheep will vote in literally anyone the GOP wants, just to vote against Obama. If there was a clone of Obama, they would literally vote in Obama just to vote against Obama. I'm just amused at how this type of thinking seems to ooze into discussions and evaluations of the candidates themselves, like a reality distortion field.
In response to the attack on our nation, our people, by the Barbary Pirates, we attacked the Barbary Pirates. In response to the attack on our nation, our people, by Al Qaeda - we invaded and overthrew the government of Iraq, and invaded and overthrew the government of Afghanistan. The successor governments, by and large, DON'T WANT US THERE ANYMORE, and we're JUST NOW getting out of Iraq, and are NOT leaving Afghanistan.
Quote from: meOuch. Where . I mean, not just where we disagree-- which is everywhere .....
Deriding me for sanctimony while exhibiting it yourself in the very same post qualifies as hypocrisy. You take me to task for my idealism in exactly the same way I take you to task for what I see as lack of same, defending your position with the samew zeal and devotion that I defend mine. Plus, frankly, I'm not even sure the charge of sanctimoniousness is a valid one - as it at least implies if not outright states a FEIGNED high-mindedness or devoutness. I might not always succeed in measuring up to my personal principles and ideals. But I ALWAYS try, and I feel that I'm willing to accept correction when I fail. YM, of course, MV.
I keep coming back to the car analogy because it fits so very well. We're past the point where taking off the cruise control is a suitable answer. Voting for someone like Mitt or Newt is just that - it's not enough. If we don't at least try for more, NOW, it may be too late for ANYTHING to work.
Quote from: TommyGunnOur record is hardly perfect but it's pretty damned good overall. Far, far better than many european countries and Asian countries.
"Better than the other guys", as far as I'm concerned, isn't enough. We claim the moral high ground. We'd better be able to hold our heads up high and prove that we DESERVE it. Best of a bad lot doesn't cut it.
Quote from: TommyGunnThe political reality is that he (R. Paul)doesn't have enough support in America to be elected over Obama.
Kind of a bold statement when we don't have a Republican selected to run yet, and 10 months to go in which nearly anything can happen.
[/quote] .Quote from: TommyGunnHow many people get themselves hooked on some illegal drug and wind up stealing $$ in a life of crime to support their habit?The users of illegal drugs hurt others all the time, in case you haven't been paying attention. Hell man, people who use LEGAL drugs (alcohol) hurt people all the time.
Then punish those who commit acts which violate the rights of others, regardless of whether they were stoned, drunk, or sober at the time of the incident. You have my complete, wholehearted support for that.
Drug use itself IS NOT EVIL.
But the War On Some Drugs is.
And I say that as someone who drinks very little, and who has no interest in even trying "recreational" drugs
I think the Newt campaign might be smart/shrewd enough to find a spot for RP. Asking him to be the treas. sec. would convince a lot of folks to hold their noses at the poll.
It's kinda sad that America,as a whole, was more free under Bill Clinton's presidency than under George W. Bush's presidency....
Which outrages you more:
1. An executive order or law outlawing the importation of mohair.
2. An executive order or law outlawing the importation of firearms and ammunition?
Ought both issues have the same weight with you, or might one be more important to you?
In a real-world situation, where you had to give up something for a balanced budget and entitlement reforms, which of these would you most be able to tolerate becoming law?
If you want a libertarian nation, create one. This America is never going to look very much like a libertarian country again. You can start elsewhere or carve up some of the current polity. I don't mean to discourage you. On the contrary.
In a real-world situation, where you had to give up something for a balanced budget and entitlement reforms, which of these would you most be able to tolerate becoming law?