Iowa: Paul closes in on Gingrich

[The_Rock]

When I think of Ron Paul and public opinion, it reminds me of Archbishop Sheen’s quote about there are not 100 people who hate the Catholic Church, but millions who hate what they perceive it to be.

OK, I am willing for the sake of argument to find out why:
1 Ron Paul Supports the “right” of gay couples to marry.
2 Ron Paul supports the legalization of prostitution.
3 Ron Paul supports the legalization of drugs.

 

[gilliam]

Proof or it isn’t true.

Paul’s “ceiling” nationally is at best in the low teens.

see:
realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html

In Iowa maybe 20%.
see:
realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/ia/iowa_republican_presidential_primary-1588.html

 

[gilliam]

Romney has never beaten an anti-Romney: The Media has unseated all the other contenders. If Newt is out why would people flock to the guy they have been avoiding all race long?

Republicans aren’t going nominate a Libertarian as their nominee. Just like they aren’t going to nominate a Democrat for their nominee. It doesn’t matter how much money Ron Paul has to keep his campaign going.

Romney knows they dont like him as a candidate, thats why he is running on the “Best shot at beating Obama” Platform. Not the I am a better conservative than these guys platform

True as far as it goes, but Romney is liked outside the South and the bible belt.

 

[bbarrick8383]

OK, I am willing for the sake of argument to find out why:
1 Ron Paul Supports the “right” of gay couples to marry.

Ron Paul is a devout Christian, a bible belt bible thumping guy. He does not support the right of gay couples to marry but the right of the states to choose to license marriage or not. Or prohibit gay marriage or not. The states are not part of a union to force every state into a mold, they are part of a union because the powers which are enumerated to the federal government are across the board powers that benefit us all. Anything more or less and we risk consequences.

Let me ask you a question.

Would the debate on gay marriage exist if it wasn’t for government?

To me, gay marriage is an oxymoron. Gay’s can not get married. But if it weren’t for government the fight for gay marriage wouldn’t even exist. They could dress up and pretend they were getting married all they wanted. God’s the one who recognized valid marriages, no godvernment as people have come to believe in.

2 Ron Paul supports the legalization of prostitution.

Again, a states rights issue. Just because I believe each state has the ability to make it legal does not mean I support prostitution. I just don’t want to live in Las Vegas or anywhere else that it may be legal.

3 Ron Paul supports the legalization of drugs.

As Dr. Paul said, if the Federal government legalizes heroin today, are you going to become a heroine addict tomorrow? How many states would allow the legalization of heroine?

We want the Federal government to protect our freedom of speech, but when make a mistake when we start to pick and choose other freedoms we want it to limit. Like he said, we do not have the 1st amendment so that we can talk about the weather. We have it so you can say whatever you want and the FEDERAL government can not do anything about it.

Liberalism really aggravates me because liberals think Oklahoma should be just like New York. I should be forced to live under the same roof as 300 million other citizens. If we do not fight for outright freedom of our liberties, we can only expect to watch them disappear all the while have other peoples lifestyles forced down our throats.

 

[The_Rock]

I would respectfully ask you to view this interview of Ron Paul by John Stossel:
youtube.com/watch?v=UJz81lAwY0M

To me he seems to be going beyond the arguement of making these issues unregulated by the federal government, left up to the states to decide. He seems to me to be saying that the States should not even be making these activities illegal, except for children.

I think he is essentially a Libertarian, which very few Americans would support.

 

[bbarrick8383]

I’m not history expert, but I believe our founding fathers, some of them anyway, had some faith in the Constitution because faith in government is not a good place to put it. We can not even trust them to protect the unborn, is anyone surprised that DOMA still exists under the current administration? Unfortunately, we can not even put faith that the constitution will protect us anymore as it has been weakened almost to the point of ineffectiveness. We are fighting to retain the liberties it holds for us more and more.

Fortunately, I can put some faith in the people of my state because we will try to defend the unborn as much as possible. I can also have some faith in them that gay marriage will have a hard time making it here.

But do you really to rely on the Feds?

 

[ishii]

Not necessarily knew them but also took the time to understand them and put faith into them. Like the Catholic Church, they are accused of worshiping Mary or praying to the saints, Dr. Paul often get’s accused like we’ve seen here of feeding at the trough of government handouts, or being accused of being an isolationist because he didn’t support a certain free trade deal and wants to close down overseas bases.

Whenever I check into the accusations against him, I always find a very honest explanation from the man. Much like I do when I research information about the Catholic Church. Around here I can walk up to anyone and tell them I’m interested in Catholicism and each time I’ll get a story about something they believe that Catholics believe.

Dr. Paul’s fault is he is honest, and people are use to having honest politicians. They are use to being lied to or having them beat around the bush and so they expect the same with him.

While I am not a Ron Paul guy, I think your analysis is fair. There is probably much misinformation surrounding Ron Paul. Here is my political analysis: Obama would win in a landslide against Ron Paul. Then he’d choose his 3rd and 4th supreme court justice. But Paul won’t win the nomination. Either Gingrich or Romney will.

Ishii

 

[bbarrick8383]

I would respectfully ask you to view this interview of Ron Paul:
youtube.com/watch?v=UJz81lAwY0M

To me he seems to be going beyond the arguement of making these issues unregulated by the federal government, left up to the states to decide. He seems to me to be saying that the States should not even be making these activities illegal, except for children.

They are specifically talking about state rights. Now, whether he would or wouldn’t support those laws on the state level doesn’t really matter. He’s not running for a state level position and he would never win at that argument.

I think he is essentially a Libertarian, which very few Americans would support.

There is no essential to it, he’s a libertarian. And every American should support it at least on the Federal level.

Listen to the last sentence he said:

“Government can’t protect individuals from themselves.”

Ask yourself, can YOU protect ME from MYSELF?

The answer is no, I will do what I want regardless of whether it’s legal or not. The Federal government is wasting our time and money pretending it can.

 

[The_Rock]

I am not as strict a Constitutionalist as Ron Paul, and I doubt 99% are. I would not want to allow individual states legalizing all kinds of behavior (polygamous marriage, same sex marriage, partial birth abortion, recreational drug use, transportation of minors across state borders to get around abortion restrictions etc.) I believe it is in the interest of, and the duty of, the Federal government to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as stated in the Declaration of Independence.
Why would restricting abortion (or drug abuse for that matter) on a National level be any less the legitimate duty of the Federal government? After all the founding fathers believed in inalienable rights, endowed by their creator, and in the Preamble to the Constitution they stated:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I want a more limited and accountable goverment but the Federal Government does have a role in protecting it’s citizens from unjust state laws that deprive them of life and attack the family which is the foundation of society.

 

[bbarrick8383]

While I am not a Ron Paul guy, I think your analysis is fair. There is probably much misinformation surrounding Ron Paul. Here is my political analysis: Obama would win in a landslide against Ron Paul. Then he’d choose his 3rd and 4th supreme court justice. But Paul won’t win the nomination. Either Gingrich or Romney will.

Ishii

I’m not suggesting that he will win, but that his ideas should win perhaps in another candidate(his son?) down the road. I think my political predictions and analysis are pretty good if you don’t mine me saying, that said I’m not someone whose going to run around saying Paul’s gonna win, or Mitt or Newts going to win. I try to hold my judgements until I can get a pretty clear picture of what’s about to happen and right now it’s way too far out.

 

[bbarrick8383]

I am not as strict a Constitutionalist as Ron Paul, and I doubt 99% are. I would not want to allow individual states legalizing all kinds of behavior (polygamous marriage, same sex marriage, partial birth abortion, recreational drug use, transportation of minors across state borders to get around abortion restrictions etc.) I believe it is in the interest of, and the duty of, the Federal government to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as stated in the Declaration of Independence.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but what are the Federal laws on polygamy? Gay marriage?

How’s the war on drugs working out?

Why would restricting abortion (or drug abuse for that matter) on a National level be any less the legitimate duty of the Federal government? After all the founding fathers believed in inalienable rights, endowed by their creator, and in the Preamble to the Constitution they stated:

How’s the Federal government doing at “restricting” abortion? 1 million a year thanks to the Federal courts. How many would be alive today if the states had control?

I want a more limited and accountable goverment but the Federal Government does have a role in protecting it’s citizens from unjust state laws that deprive them of life and attack the family which is the foundation of society.

States laws can be fought much easier than federal laws…so what happens when the Federal government does not protect it’s citizens?

Roe V. Wade…going on what 45 years now?

 

[bbarrick8383]

Difference between us is I don’t believe the Federal government has the power to define when life begins, what liberties folks in other states should have, or what direction you should take on your pursuit of happiness.

 

[ishii]

I’m not suggesting that he will win, but that his ideas should win perhaps in another candidate(his son?) down the road. I think my political predictions and analysis are pretty good if you don’t mine me saying, that said I’m not someone whose going to run around saying Paul’s gonna win, or Mitt or Newts going to win. I try to hold my judgements until I can get a pretty clear picture of what’s about to happen and right now it’s way too far out.

I like Rand Paul. Perhaps he is someone who can advance some of Paul’s better ideas.

Ishii

 

[bbarrick8383]

I like Rand Paul. Perhaps he is someone who can advance some of Paul’s better ideas.

Ishii

I agree.

What I did interesting is that Ronald Reagan loved Dr. Paul’s ideas in foreign policy, yet nobody else does.

 

[The_Rock]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but what are the Federal laws on polygamy?

The Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act (37th United States Congress, Sess. 2., ch. 126, 12 Stat. 501) was a federal enactment of the United States Congress that was signed into law on July 8, 1862 by President Abraham Lincoln. Sponsored by Justin Smith Morrill of Vermont, the act banned bigamy

 

[The_Rock]

Difference between us is I don’t believe the Federal government has the power to define when life begins, what liberties folks in other states should have, or what direction you should take on your pursuit of happiness.

That is fair. That perhaps is the difference between us.
I believe:

“When human life begins” is a biological scientific question which has now been answered. The Goverment just has to acknowledge the science.

The Federal government has already acknowledged liberties folks in other states should have…liberties endowed by their Creator…Life, liberty and the persuit of happiness. Even the States don’t have the right to take away these unalienable rights. Hence the States have no right to make abortion legal.

 

[bbarrick8383]

The_Rock:
Polygamy

Not only do they live in the US, but they have their own television show.

DOMA

Does not prevent gay marriage, only prevents my state from being forced to recognize gay marriage and is under heavy fire under this administration. Pretty good chance it will not be around much longer as long as Democrats are pushing against it.

Drugs

I would argue a great deal better than if drug abuse was legal.

It wouldn’t matter, because they would still be illegal. The war on drugs has not done us any good.

Indeed, the War on Drugs has proven to be one of the most spectacular failures in the history of international policy. Despite half a century passing and trillions of dollars being spent, its noble intentions of protecting the ‘health and welfare of mankind’ by reducing the use, availability and harms of drugs have never reached fruition, and the violent criminal empires which the drug laws have unintentionally sponsored are more powerful and dangerous than ever.

When the Federal government does not protect it’s citizens you elect Federal officials that will protect life

Wake me up when you get there, I’m tired of waiting and watching.

Can you really say “Great job Federal Government!! ”?

 

[bbarrick8383]

That is fair. That perhaps is the difference between us.
I believe:

“When human life begins” is a biological scientific question which has now been answered. The Goverment just has to acknowledge the science.

The Federal government has already acknowledged liberties folks in other states should have…liberties endowed by their Creator…Life, liberty and the persuit of happiness. Even the States don’t have the right to take away these unalienable rights. Hence the States have no right to make abortion legal.

Yes, you believe in big bloated Federal government.

Like I said earlier, it’s much like the Catholic Church with Ron Paul and his policies. People have no faith in other people in managing their lives properly.

Thanks for being there to stop me from hurting myself.

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

Paul’s “ceiling” nationally is at best in the low teens.

see:
realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html

In Iowa maybe 20%.
see:
realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/ia/iowa_republican_presidential_primary-1588.html

Yeah, last year people were saying his ceiling was 10%. Now that’s he’s blown past that, it’s 20%? I’m sorry, but I’m not seeing much evidence for it.

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

While I am not a Ron Paul guy, I think your analysis is fair. There is probably much misinformation surrounding Ron Paul. Here is my political analysis: Obama would win in a landslide against Ron Paul. Then he’d choose his 3rd and 4th supreme court justice. But Paul won’t win the nomination. Either Gingrich or Romney will.

Ishii

The peace candidates usually win. Think of Obama. Bush won on a foreign policy of non-interventionism. Paul has established that he is the peace candidate and Obama has established that he is a liar on the issue. That right there gets a ton of support for Paul.