Ron Paul vs Rick Perry

[Toorop]

I will be voting for Ron Paul whether he gets the nomination or not. I will not vote against someone but I will vote for someone. I would rather 4 more years of Obama then Perry.

How are you going to vote for someone not on the ballot? Ron Paul will not get the Republican nomination and will succeed only in raising a lot of money from his groupies; just like the last time he "ran for President."

Saying you will vote for Ron Paul, but you'd rather have 4 more years of Obama than have Perry as President speaks volumes.

Chas.

I don't live in Texas, but I do plan to move there within the near future. I am trying to find a job somewhere out there and to go back to school. I will just write Ron Paul in as I did last time.

I consider myself to be very much a libertarian with a few disagreeing views to their traditional values to be honest. I am not a fan of any of the GOP candidates except for Ron Paul. In my opinion he is the only true Conservative. And most importantly he is the only honest one in my opinion and that means a lot to me. All of the candidates they have put up have done something that I dislike and I just won't vote for them.

As far as Obama goes, I believe he is doing the best he can but he is not going about it the right way. Either way I campaigned for Ron Paul in 2008 and I will be voting for him in 2012 as well as working for his candidacy.

While Ron Paul and the Libertarian Party hold a few (emphasis on "few") beliefs with which conservatives will agree, neither Ron Paul nor the Libertarian Party platform are the least bit conservative. They are ultra liberal on social issues and are anarchist on others. Look at the 2010 Libertarian Party Platform below. Here are a few highlights: the LP 1) supports legalizing all drug use; 2) opposes laws against abortion, homosexual acts, or "same sex" marriages; 3) supports opening all borders to anyone wanting to come into the U.S.; and 4) oppose deploying any U.S. armed forces outside the continental U.S. Again, these are just highlights. The LP Platform sometimes gives their rationale and often it can only be classified as delusional. For example, the LP supports repeal of all environmental protection laws because the free market will protect the environment on its own. That is delusional! If Ron Paul and the Libertarian Party had their way, the world would take a giant step back towards the days of the robber barons that Teddy Roosevelt crushed. Had he not done so, the U.S. would have become a third world country run by a handful of people who held all of the country's wealth.

Remember, Ron Paul ran for President twice, once in the Republican Primary and once as the Libertarian Candidate. While I have a "forum friend" who is a libertarian (little "L" as he points out), he distances himself from the national party. Ron Paul didn't distance himself, he proudly carried their banner as the Libertarian candidate for President.

When Ron Paul supporters and Libertarian Party Members call themselves "conservatives," it is a disservice to true conservatives. Libertarians can best be described as anarchists with a few conservative ideas.

Chas.

I would consider myself a libertarian with a little "L" as well. The fact is that I am pretty much in line with the description of the social issues as you described above. However I disagree with the LP on the environmental protection laws as well as some consumer protection laws. I also feel that deploying our armed forces outside of the USA is wrong but I would suggest keeping a very active and strong intelligence gathering agency and funding it.

I would not call us anarchists, but I would say that we are simply people who wish to truly conserve the culture of freedom as we see it. Everyone feels the Founding Fathers had similar ideas to their own when they formed this nation. I would like to believe that as I imagine you would, but the truth is that we don't really know and the Constitution, Bill of RIghts, and Declaration of Independence as well as some of their writings are the only guiding lights we have and we have to interpret them. The Founding Fathers did give us a court system which tries to interpret it to the best of their abilities but they fail often, at least in my opinion. I would imagine every poster here would say the same. I do feel we are conservatives in a lot of ways and wish to see the issues rolled back to the way they were prior to a certain time. For example, I would like to see us be isolationists again as we were for a long long time but I understand it is impractical in a global economy, so the best we can do is try to get as close to that as possible. Some would like to return to the previous tax brackets and others would like to go back to a time when abortion and homosexuality were frowned upon if done openly. It really depends on the individual.

But in my opinion the basic philosophy of the Libertarian party is leave me alone and I will leave you alone. I can agree with that.

Either way it is getting late and I want to check out a few other threads.

[Dave2]

Libertarians can best be described as anarchists with a few conservative ideas.

Huh... And all this time I thought I could've been best described as a conservative who believes the 10th amendment is just as important as the rest. I think their "small government" rallying cry has attracted too diverse of a membership to be able to blanket the whole party with one statement of motivation.

For the record, I think some of Ron Paul's (and the Libertarians') positions are lunacy, and I still haven't decided who I'll be voting for in the primaries. The governmental "building" has grown so big and unruly that I worry about how much longer the foundation of our nation can take the weight. Of the major political parties, Libertarians would get us back to a small federal government the quickest, so in principle that's who I'm in favor of. You are correct in that their platform in its entirety would be unhealthy for us, but as long as we're talking about the feds I'm not sure it would be worse than where we seem to be heading. The Republican party platform (the 2008 version, anyway) is fifty-five pages of missing the point... they're proposing more of this and expanding that when the answer is less of everything. Again, I agree that the Libertarians would take it too far, but at least they want to move in the right direction, and it's pretty hard to stop in the correct place if we aren't going towards it to begin with.

[Bullwhip]

Libertarians can best be described as anarchists with a few conservative ideas.

Huh... And all this time I thought I could've been best described as a conservative who believes the 10th amendment is just as important as the rest. I think their "small government" rallying cry has attracted too diverse of a membership to be able to blanket the whole party with one statement of motivation.

Hold on, editing...

Can a political party be anarchist? Is that like a religious athiest?

[MeloXDm]

Ehn. I'm almost afraid to chime in, as a new guy around here - so I'm saying my piece and that's that. But I'll gladly vote for the first presidential candidate who can manage to resist the temptation to use government power to meddle in my bedroom, or force their religious beliefs on me. I believe in the first amendment and the tenth as much as I do in the second, and the Republican party fails on those counts - I like all my rights, thank you.

Unfortunately, that's none of them this time around. Ron Paul is the closest (so I marked him in the poll), but even he can't resist the lure of government power to force his religious views about foetuses across every state in the nation (Bill S.3 - vote number 2003-530 on Oct 2, 2003; Bill HR 534 - vote number 2003-39 on Feb 27, 2003 ; Bill HR 3660 - vote number 2000-104 on Apr 5, 2000).

[Charles L. Cotton]

Yes I understand Obama is anti-gun, however he has expanded gun rights more than any other recent president with his signing of the national parks carry. I know he did not want to sign it but he did anyway.

It was attached to a bill he felt he had to sign; he didn't do it because it was the will of Congress or the will of the people. What about his two Supreme Court justices? What about his support of a U.N. small arms treaty? What about his involvement with Fast and Furious? What about his current push to have the BLM close millions of acres of government land to sport shooting and hunting? Obama isn't just philosophically anti-gun, he is rabidly and actively anti-gun.

If Obama were to get a second term, and he will not, then he would no longer be running for reelection and he would do everything he could to make gun ownership difficult. With Republicans controlling the House and possibly the Senate, he won't get an anti-gun bill on his desk to sign, but he's already proven he'll use executive orders to do whatever he wants. He's so intellectually dishonest as to instruct the U.S. Attorney General not to defend any suits challenging the Defense of Marriage Act!! What a load of crap. That's not his choice. It's the AG's legal duty to defend the laws passed by Congress, but Obama's arrogance and his corrupt Chicago roots has truly led him to believe his above the law. Obama is hands down the worst President in U.S. history.

As far as gun rights though, that is not the only issue I am truly concerned with. The economy is a major factor in my opinion as well as our foreign policy. Gay rights and abortion are also important to me as I am pro-gay rights and pro choice. I am also pro-gun but it is not the only factor on how I vote.

You can't be pro-abortion and pro-gay-rights and be conservative, so your claim that Ron Paul "is the only true conservative" is transparent. You are clearly a liberal and that's fine, but don't imply that you are conservative because you support Ron Paul.

I too care about issues other than the Second Amendment, but a candidate's position on guns is a litmus test. If they are wrong on guns, then they cannot do enough to redeem themselves. If we were to get past this litmus test, then you and I would clearly be on opposite sides of the issues you mentioned. So Ron Paul fails in my view.

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Ehn. I'm almost afraid to chime in, as a new guy around here - so I'm saying my piece and that's that. But I'll gladly vote for the first presidential candidate who can manage to resist the temptation to use government power to meddle in my bedroom, or force their religious beliefs on me. I believe in the first amendment and the tenth as much as I do in the second, and the Republican party fails on those counts - I like all my rights, thank you.

Please identify any U.S. President that has tried to "force their religious beliefs on" you. If you can't identify any, then give us some political candidates that have tried to do so.

As for your bedroom, well you know it doesn't stop there does it? Marriage, adoption, special protection, special rights, the demands go on and on.

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I will be voting for Ron Paul whether he gets the nomination or not. I will not vote against someone but I will vote for someone. I would rather 4 more years of Obama then Perry.

How are you going to vote for someone not on the ballot? Ron Paul will not get the Republican nomination and will succeed only in raising a lot of money from his groupies; just like the last time he "ran for President."

Saying you will vote for Ron Paul, but you'd rather have 4 more years of Obama than have Perry as President speaks volumes.

Chas.

I don't live in Texas, but I do plan to move there within the near future. I am trying to find a job somewhere out there and to go back to school. I will just write Ron Paul in as I did last time.

I consider myself to be very much a libertarian with a few disagreeing views to their traditional values to be honest. I am not a fan of any of the GOP candidates except for Ron Paul. In my opinion he is the only true Conservative. And most importantly he is the only honest one in my opinion and that means a lot to me. All of the candidates they have put up have done something that I dislike and I just won't vote for them.

As far as Obama goes, I believe he is doing the best he can but he is not going about it the right way. Either way I campaigned for Ron Paul in 2008 and I will be voting for him in 2012 as well as working for his candidacy.

While Ron Paul and the Libertarian Party hold a few (emphasis on "few") beliefs with which conservatives will agree, neither Ron Paul nor the Libertarian Party platform are the least bit conservative. They are ultra liberal on social issues and are anarchist on others. Look at the 2010 Libertarian Party Platform below. Here are a few highlights: the LP 1) supports legalizing all drug use; 2) opposes laws against abortion, homosexual acts, or "same sex" marriages; 3) supports opening all borders to anyone wanting to come into the U.S.; and 4) oppose deploying any U.S. armed forces outside the continental U.S. Again, these are just highlights. The LP Platform sometimes gives their rationale and often it can only be classified as delusional. For example, the LP supports repeal of all environmental protection laws because the free market will protect the environment on its own. That is delusional! If Ron Paul and the Libertarian Party had their way, the world would take a giant step back towards the days of the robber barons that Teddy Roosevelt crushed. Had he not done so, the U.S. would have become a third world country run by a handful of people who held all of the country's wealth.

Remember, Ron Paul ran for President twice, once in the Republican Primary and once as the Libertarian Candidate. While I have a "forum friend" who is a libertarian (little "L" as he points out), he distances himself from the national party. Ron Paul didn't distance himself, he proudly carried their banner as the Libertarian candidate for President.

When Ron Paul supporters and Libertarian Party Members call themselves "conservatives," it is a disservice to true conservatives. Libertarians can best be described as anarchists with a few conservative ideas.

Chas.

I would consider myself a libertarian with a little "L" as well. The fact is that I am pretty much in line with the description of the social issues as you described above. However I disagree with the LP on the environmental protection laws as well as some consumer protection laws. I also feel that deploying our armed forces outside of the USA is wrong but I would suggest keeping a very active and strong intelligence gathering agency and funding it.

I would not call us anarchists, but I would say that we are simply people who wish to truly conserve the culture of freedom as we see it. Everyone feels the Founding Fathers had similar ideas to their own when they formed this nation. I would like to believe that as I imagine you would, but the truth is that we don't really know and the Constitution, Bill of RIghts, and Declaration of Independence as well as some of their writings are the only guiding lights we have and we have to interpret them. The Founding Fathers did give us a court system which tries to interpret it to the best of their abilities but they fail often, at least in my opinion. I would imagine every poster here would say the same. I do feel we are conservatives in a lot of ways and wish to see the issues rolled back to the way they were prior to a certain time. For example, I would like to see us be isolationists again as we were for a long long time but I understand it is impractical in a global economy, so the best we can do is try to get as close to that as possible. Some would like to return to the previous tax brackets and others would like to go back to a time when abortion and homosexuality were frowned upon if done openly. It really depends on the individual.

But in my opinion the basic philosophy of the Libertarian party is leave me alone and I will leave you alone. I can agree with that.

Either way it is getting late and I want to check out a few other threads.

Actually, the founding fathers did not establish a court system to interpret the Constitution, probably because it needs no interpretation. In the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison, the U.S. Supreme Court proclaimed itself to have final authority to determine constitutionality. You cannot find that authority anywhere in the constitution. Nine political appointees now have absolute control of federal laws in this country because 208 years ago, the Supreme Court first perverted the constitution and usurped the authority intended for Congress. Now looking at various congresses that have been in Democrat/liberal control, this may have been a good result, but it unfortunately established a precedent for the court to do whatever it wants, regardless of the constitution. It gave rise to what liberals today call a "living constitution" that changes with the will and whim of those in power. If the constitution isn't set in stone, then it provides no protection. If it needs to be changed, then follow the procedure for amending it.

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Libertarians can best be described as anarchists with a few conservative ideas.

Huh... And all this time I thought I could've been best described as a conservative who believes the 10th amendment is just as important as the rest. I think their "small government" rallying cry has attracted too diverse of a membership to be able to blanket the whole party with one statement of motivation.

For the record, I think some of Ron Paul's (and the Libertarians') positions are lunacy, and I still haven't decided who I'll be voting for in the primaries. The governmental "building" has grown so big and unruly that I worry about how much longer the foundation of our nation can take the weight. Of the major political parties, Libertarians would get us back to a small federal government the quickest, so in principle that's who I'm in favor of. You are correct in that their platform in its entirety would be unhealthy for us, but as long as we're talking about the feds I'm not sure it would be worse than where we seem to be heading. The Republican party platform (the 2008 version, anyway) is fifty-five pages of missing the point... they're proposing more of this and expanding that when the answer is less of everything. Again, I agree that the Libertarians would take it too far, but at least they want to move in the right direction, and it's pretty hard to stop in the correct place if we aren't going towards it to begin with.

I agree with most of what you say about the size of the federal government, but the Libertarian Party is not a major party and it will never win a Presidential election. Voters look at the entire platform and as you say, it is unhealthy for the country. Most voters will not merely pick out some planks they like and ignore the rest so they can support a Libertarian candidate.

The answer lies in the Tea Party movement within the Republican Party. They elected a lot of new Representatives and they made their presence felt this term. If that body can grow in future elections, then we can see a rise real in conservative power and achieve the reduction in the federal government we need. The concessions we saw this term in the funding bills were the direct result of the small number of Tea Party Representatives in the House. Let them rise to a majority and we can truly make a difference in the size of the federal government. Since Tea Party candidates are Republican, then can and do win. Libertarians will never win more than an occasional seat because their overall beliefs are far too radical for all but a few Americans. Again, I'll point to the forum friend I mentioned earlier. He pointed out that Texas libertarians are markedly different from the national organization in that they don't buy into the radical planks in the LP Platform. In my view, that makes him a great Tea Party guy and I wish he'd run for office as a Tea Party Republican.

A few posters have pointed to the 10th Amendment in the Ron Paul v. Rick Perry thread, as well as other threads. Please note that the radical, ultra-liberal Libertarian Party Platform is not limited to the federal government. Yes, the military and border protection is the responsibility of the federal government, but other social issues like abortion, gay-rights, illegal drug use, taxes, land use, consumer/environmental protection laws, are issues dealt with in every state legislature. So the LP isn't protecting the 10th Amendment; it's promoting an ultra-liberal agenda in terms of social issues.

Chas.

[canvasbck]

You can't be pro-abortion and pro-gay-rights and be conservative

To start off, I'm conservative, anti-abortion, and think the federal governement should stay away from the gay rights issue.

Wow Charles, I have to disagree with you here. IMO, a conservative believes that the powers of the federal govt should be limited as much as possible. I am OK with federal laws that prevent me or others from victimizing other innocent citizens (murder, fraud, theft, abortion, ect) but if Bob Denver (Gilligan) or Willie Nelson wants to light up a left handed cigarrette on his porch, who cares? If Bob and Willie want to get married, it doesn't affect me or my wife in the least. My belief system has taught me that homosexuality is wrong, but it also has taught me that God created us with free will to do wrong things. If God was OK with me having a free will to screw up and do things that damage me here on earth or in eternity, who is the government to take that free will away?

I don't really care for the conservative and liberal boxes that everyone must fit into. Being a conservative (or a liberal for that matter) isn't some exclusive club with a list of beliefs that you must conform to without fail. Just because I don't feel exactly the same was as Hannity on every issue, I still agree with at least 90% of the conservative agenda. In the areas of fiscal conservancy and entitlement and tort reform I agree with the conservative agenda 100%.

[Keith B]

You can't be pro-abortion and pro-gay-rights and be conservative

To start off, I'm conservative, anti-abortion, and think the federal governement should stay away from the gay rights issue.

Wow Charles, I have to disagree with you here. IMO, a conservative believes that the powers of the federal govt should be limited as much as possible. I am OK with federal laws that prevent me or others from victimizing other innocent citizens (murder, fraud, theft, abortion, ect) but if Bob Denver (Gilligan) or Willie Nelson wants to light up a left handed cigarrette on his porch, who cares? If Bob and Willie want to get married, it doesn't affect me or my wife in the least. My belief system has taught me that homosexuality is wrong, but it also has taught me that God created us with free will to do wrong things. If God was OK with me having a free will to screw up and do things that damage me here on earth or in eternity, who is the government to take that free will away?

I don't really care for the conservative and liberal boxes that everyone must fit into. Being a conservative (or a liberal for that matter) isn't some exclusive club with a list of beliefs that you must conform to without fail. Just because I don't feel exactly the same was as Hannity on every issue, I still agree with at least 90% of the conservative agenda. In the areas of fiscal conservancy and entitlement and tort reform I agree with the conservative agenda 100%.

I believe you are like many out there that consider themselves as Conservatives, but have Liberal tendencies.

While I am willing turn an eye to what others are doing in some circumstances, for example gay marriage and homosexuality, I am still against it. So, while I may not chastise someone who is gay and am not a homophobic as I have multiple gay friends, I still have been taught it is wrong and my core is that it is wrong, so that puts me in the conservative side.

As for drugs, if they are deemed illegal, then they are illegal. Same with anything, so while I may feel that marijuana use is no more harmful than tobacco or alcohol use, it is still against the law and that law should be enforced. Now, if you want it changed, rally against the law, lobby for a modification and get it changed; until then, you are a criminal.

Pro choice for me is not pro-choice. I believe there are reasons for abortion, but not as a regular method of birth control. For me, rape, physical health issues, etc may justify an abortion, and that should be the choice of the individual, but just because an adult messed up and got pregnant they should not have that choice.

So I agree with Charles, you cannot at your core be pro-gay rights and pro-abortion and be a true 100% Conservative. You may be majorly Conservative, and lean to the right enough to side with the Conservatives, but you are not a true Conservative.

[CC Italian]

I think I am with you on this Keith. I have similar views. I always considered myself a conservative but the older I get the more I realize that it is fiscal and government based. Socially I think I am more moderate. I find it funny talking to friends about liberals and conservatives. Many of my friends are liberal (Texas liberal, I guess you could call them conservative democrats that vote Republican more then half the time.) I have relatives in New York and New Jersey and liberals up north are very different then liberals in Texas. Heck, the liberals here are sometimes more conservative then the republicans up north. A couple of my close friends are religious conservatives and obviously are more inclined to vote Republican.

Where does that leave me? My friends who are "more liberal" call me a conservative and my friends who are religiously conservative call me a liberal. I am not a democrat and don't plan on voting that way anytime soon.

[CC Italian]

I think between the last few posts we can see how this can greatly effect the election next year. The conservatives or the people who vote Republican more often then not are a very diverse group. I just hope that moderate Republicans don't vote Obama because they are afraid of the conservative right. I personally will vote for a religious fiscal conservative before Obama any day of the week! We need to come together and vote for who is best for this country!

[The Annoyed Man]

Gay rights and abortion are also important to me as I am pro-gay rights and pro-choice. I am also pro-gun but it is not the only factor on how I vote.

Does it bother you that a large majority of all voters (regardless of party, and please note that I did not say "all") who are pro-gay and pro-choice would crush your right to keep and bear arms if they could? I find it odd that you could find common cause with such people. You say that the RKBA is not the only factor on how you vote, but it also sounds as if you have assigned it a priority lower than the other two causes.....by caucusing with those who would crush that right. When one cause bumps into another, which will you put first?

[The Annoyed Man]

I am fine with another four more years of Obama as it will come down to him or someone I don't like is my guess.

And there it is folks. You're fine with Fast & Furious. You're fine with a justice department that tries to squash the right of a murdered border patrol agent's family to speak at the sentencing hearing of the accused murderer, because their testimony would bring the Fast & Furious corruption to light. You're fine with the weapons that Obama's BATF ordered honest gun dealers to go ahead and sell to known criminals being used in the murders of countless Mexican nationals, including Mexican law enforcement and elected officials. And now, of course, you'd be fine with the latest F&F revelation—that this administration actually bought guns using taxpayer money, and then actually resold them to known criminals (SOURCE). You're fine with Obama's state department committing to get a UN small arms control treaty signed into law that would give the UN sovereignty over deciding US gun laws.

You're fine with an insurance mandate which is enforced by the IRS and includes a $225/month fine for those who cannot afford insurance, but who aren't poor enough to be wards of the state (folks like ME) and who are able to cover their own healthcare out of pocket. You're fine with healthcare by committee and government interference in end-of-life issues. You're fine with the fact that the bill is so long that nobody could read the entire thing before it had to be rushed passage, because "we need to pass it to find out what's in it."

You're fine with 4 more years of 9+% unemployment. You're fine with running the national debt up another few trillion $$$. You're fine with the administration's demand to raise the debt ceiling as the answer to all of our financial issues. You're fine with pouring taxpayer money into fundamentally unsound businesses like Solyndra, because they are allegedly green, even though this administration's own due diligence argued against it. You're fine with this administration putting unions ahead of the taxpayers in any case where the interests of the two collide. You're OK with the federal government telling Boeing that they cannot open a plant in a "right to work" state, that it HAS to be in a union dominated state.

You're fine with punitive tax rates for the wealthy (but you call yourself a libertarian ). You're fine with hamstringing all the things that drive the engines of capitalism. You're fine with radically increasing the capital gains taxes, even though it will discourage investment in an already weak market. You're fine with a national debt that my great grandkids will be paying off. You're fine with Chicago-style gutter politics in the nation's capital. You're fine with all those things, so long as gays can marry and pregnant women can off their babies when it's not convenient to be pregnant.

How excellent for you that you're fine with all these things. You must be very fulfilled these days. Let me ask you, since you're fine with all these things, is there anything besides gay marriage and abortion that you particularly stand for and positively affirm and are willing to go to the mat for, or are those two issues so paramount in your thinking that you're OK with all of the above, so long as those two things aren't in any way even threatened? Just curious.

Words have meaning. When you type that you are OK with 4 more years of Obama, these are the things that you are OK with. You can't have it both ways. If you are OK with these things, at least have the intellectual clarity to admit that you're not even close to being a libertarian. And then consider this....two term presidents often try for their more radical agendas after they have been reelected. This is because they know that if they get too radical in the first term, they can't get reelected, whereas in their second terms, they have nothing to lose. So, as crazy and insane as this administration has been since January 2009, the next four years might be twice as bad, because he's got nothing to lose if he gets elected.

......but you're OK with all that. Or, hopefully, has putting things in stark relief like I've done above helped you to see that 4 more years of Obama is NOT OK, and that you're willing to do whatever it takes (within legal means) to ensure that this does not happen?

[SewTexas]

{sigh} we need a like button...'cause TAM is just on a roll today, keep preaching brother!