Ron Paul vs Rick Perry

[RoyGBiv]

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?

Proof? Data? Or just worry, suspicion and fear?
Just because the VOCAL one's may be anti RKBA does not make them a large majority.... or even a small majority.

Here exactly is the problem in politics today... To choose Republican too often means tolerating a lot of social intolerance. And to choose Democrat too often means choosing social progressivism over fiscal sanity. A candidate who espouses fiscal sanity and social tolerance can't get past the primaries. Pity us, for we are fools.

[Purplehood]

A candidate who espouses fiscal sanity and social tolerance can't get past the primaries. Pity us, for we are fools.

That describes my politics pretty succinctly.

[Charles L. Cotton]

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 agree that size, scope and authority of the federal government should be very limited. I think that the federal government's power should be limited to those expressly set out in the Constitution and not expanded by perverting the Commerce Clause. However, Ron Paul and the Libertarian Party also want to limit the state government's authority to regulate the acts I set out in my prior posts.

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?

I care and so do the vast majority of Americans. While agree that we are losing the so-called war on drugs, I don't buy the argument that smoking dope is a victimless crime. But again, Ron Paul and the LP don't merely want to legalize only marijuana, they want to repeal all drug laws. So heroin, meth, crack, LSD, PCP and anything else will be perfectly legal.

If Bob and Willie want to get married, it doesn't affect me or my wife in the least.

I'm not going to get into this issue other than to say I could not disagree more.

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?

God gave us free will to follow Christ or to sin, but that doesn't make sinning okay with God. It would be way too easy to get into a discussion of religion, so I'll shut up.

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%.

When people identify themselves as liberal or conservative, it's merely a shorthand way to give an overview of their philosophy about life and government. Of course, these are imprecise labels and some conservatives will disagree on relative minor issues as will liberals. But if the disagreement extends to major issues that are the foundation of conservative or liberal beliefs, then one question the candidate's sincerity. In Houston, we saw liberal Democrat judges defeated in mass, only to have some run as Republicans the next election. It was a sham and most were defeated.

So why do liberal Democrats and Libertarians claim to be "conservatives?" It's because conservatives are the mainstream in this country. If it were otherwise, then politically savvy candidates would claim to be liberal or moderate, but they don't except in limited geographic areas. The media tries to convince their viewers/readers otherwise, but the mainstream media has been losing its influence on the public since cable TV and the Internet came of age.

Chas.

[RoyGBiv]

So why do liberal Democrats and Libertarians claim to be "conservatives?"

.... because the word "Conservative" is ambiguous.

Socially conservative?
Morally?, Religiously, Fiscally, Constitutionally?
I can lay claim to be several of these but not all.

We have a language problem in Politics that's a huge impediment to getting the right people elected to the right jobs. This issue is compounded by American's preference to fit themselves into defined groups and put down roots, unable or unwilling or just too lazy to think things through for themselves and demand (and support!) better choices, and ferret out all the "me-too" poseurs and panderers. The person in our mirrors is more to blame than anyone else for the trouble we're in. WE THE PEOPLE allowed this to happen, and WE THE PEOPLE have the tools to fix it, but maybe not the intellect, will, attitude or patience (speaking here in general terms, not about "us" forum members specifically).

(BTW.. I know what Charles INTENDS when he says "Conservative".... But, not everyone has the same definition... You could argue that they are wrong about their definition, but, that doesn't change the fact that we have a language problem on this.)

[MeloXDm]

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?

Proof? Data? Or just worry, suspicion and fear?
Just because the VOCAL one's may be anti RKBA does not make them a large majority.... or even a small majority.

Here exactly is the problem in politics today... To choose Republican too often means tolerating a lot of social intolerance. And to choose Democrat too often means choosing social progressivism over fiscal sanity. A candidate who espouses fiscal sanity and social tolerance can't get past the primaries. Pity us, for we are fools.

Yeah. Pretty bleak, isn't it? But it's not all awful if you take a longer view.

I strongly believe, and I think the numbers support this unequivocally, that this is a generational issue - we are saddled with the political definitions of the prior generation, who for expediency's sake pretend that their political alliances of convenience are fundamental and writ in stone. One glaring example right now is the political alliance left over from the 70s and 80s between fiscal and social conservatives - people who quote both Jesus and Ayn Rand in the same paragraph are suffering some serious cognitive dissonance (or are just plain ignorant of Ayn Rand's positions on basically everything Jesus ever said).

Another is the alliance on the left between people for social freedom from government force, and people who wished to use government force to promote their notions of equality. That required its own brand of cognitive dissonance and was an artifact of the rise of the antiwar left in the 60s and 70s.

And similarly, opposition to gay rights breaks down generationally even within the Republican party. If you look at polling data, there's a stark break somewhere between the mid-30s and mid-40s year olds.

Newer generations don't have the same fault lines and alliances - we are seeing more socially liberal people who support politically (in the sense of individual rights) conservative positions as well. One of my favorite 2nd amendment groups, for example, is the Pink Pistols. They are an organization that exists to promote 2nd amendment awareness, firearms training, and concealed carry in communities where gay people have proven serious self-defense needs: their moto is "Armed gays don't get bashed." They have an excellent record of reducing random on-street violence against gays to 0, as their program includes publicizing their training and licensing efforts.

[tacticool]

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.

Conservative does not mean evangelical Christian, despite what the "religious right" pretends.

[canvasbck]

Charles,

I didn't do the break down quote by quote thing here because I'm not that good at it.

I'm pretty sure that if you and I got into a discussion about religion or even the immorality of gay marriage we would completely agree. Where we disagree is the role of governement in these issues. I fear a government that meddles in issues where there is no victim and my religous/moral beliefs are being imposed on others. Mainly because I don't want someone else's religious/moral beliefs imposed on me whenever there is a change in the political winds. I will stop short of comparing it to sharia law because it's not a fair comparison, but an equally slippery slope.

The downfall of our society and the prevelance and acceptance of what was once considered immoral behavior is not because the law has allowed it, it can be traced straight back to an overzealous interpretation of the seperation of church and state in 1967 when prayer in schools was banned, followed by a continued assault on religious freedom under the guise of seperation of church and state. Prior to then, churches had a major impact on what was viewed as right and wrong in this country. I don't believe we can fix this through legislation, it can only be fixed by removing past harmfull legislation and ending the political correctness that has prevented churches from having a voice in the public square.

I was not attempting to make my post an endorsement of Ron Paul. His views on foreign policy and on legalizing all drugs are deal breakers for me. For the record, I will support Herman Cain if he emerges as a viable candidate. If Cain does not, then I will be voting for Perry in the primaries. No matter who wins the GOP nomination, I will be voting republican just as I have since Reagan. For 2012, I wish I could vote twice against Obama.

ETA, I admit that drugs are not always a victimless crime, and I do not advocate a repeal of all drug laws.However in Gilligans case..........leave the man alone. Just because you can arrest someone doesn't mean that you should.

[tacticool]

If Obama were to get a second term, and he will not

Great. Can the Republicans party loyalists stop saying a third party vote is a vote for Obama?

Not only is it insulting, it's wrong. Candidates and parties have a choice which voters they will court, which they will antagonize, and which they will ignore. If a candidate willfully ignores (or antagonizes) a voting block, and loses the election because of the voters they ignored, the fault lies with the candidate and not the voters. That's true no matter if the candidate is Ron Paul, Rick Perry or Barack Obama. That's true no matter if the voting block is Libertarians, Greens or Unions.

[CC Italian]

Tacticool- That sounds right to me. People said this in 2008 and you know what, I really think we need at least a 3rd party that is a major player. There are Libertarians but they are never going to win anytime soon. Green party? I don't think so! Like I said earlier I will vote Republican because they have more of what I want then any other party but they are surely missing principals that I crave.

Like I have said before, I don't want chocolate or vanilla. I want chocolate swirl!! Nope all out of chocolate swirl. What do you want chocolate or vanilla? One or the other, you can't have both!!

[CC Italian]

Perfect evidence for the need for a major 3rd party is McCain-Palin; as soon as I saw this I knew it was over. They couldn't even stand each other! That whole ticket was a grab for all people of conservative roots and it was a very bad idea to try that! The Republican Party has a split personality and argues with each other just as much as the democrats. Those two had very little in common other then that they were both on the Republican ticket.

[MeloXDm]

Perfect evidence for the need for a major 3rd party is McCain-Palin;

Palin is certainly what cost McCain my vote.

[Keith B]

If Obama were to get a second term, and he will not

Great. Can the Republicans party loyalists stop saying a third party vote is a vote for Obama?

Not only is it insulting, it's wrong. Candidates and parties have a choice which voters they will court, which they will antagonize, and which they will ignore. If a candidate willfully ignores (or antagonizes) a voting block, and loses the election because of the voters they ignored, the fault lies with the candidate and not the voters. That's true no matter if the candidate is Ron Paul, Rick Perry or Barack Obama. That's true no matter if the voting block is Libertarians, Greens or Unions.

A vote for a third party IS a vote for Obama if it causes you NOT to vote for the Republican candidate. This is how Clinton won in 1992 due to a large number of voters jumping to vote for Perot who would have otherwise voted for Bush. Perot won approximately 19% of the popular vote, which caused some of the states to end up giving the electoral votes to Clinton instead of Bush. Clinton ended up with 43% of the popular vote vs. Bush 37%. Had even a small portion of those that voted for Perot voted for Bush he would have won a second term.

Bottom line, when it comes to the final election, people need to vote with the candidate that has the chance of winning that will do things in their best interest. If a large portion don't vote that way, then the wrong candidate has a very good chance of being your new leader.

[Purplehood]

All Voters: Please recall that this is a Two-Party Democracy. Please fill-out your ballot appropriately.

[CC Italian]

We will see. I bit my tongue last time and did my part with McCain-Palin even though I knew it was hopeless and I will do it again if need be but there were just too many people looking at Palin and running for the hills. That on top of a horrid campaign, state of the country etc led a lot of “liberal" Republicans (or what ever you want to call them, independents etc) and conservative democrats to not even consider McCain because they couldn't stomach Palin. I remember being in the voting both saying to myself "Don't you dare die on us John". We know now this wouldn't have been a problem but many people I know voted different. Some voted Dem, some Libertarian or I even met a few who went Green. These were people who voted this way not because they had any allegiance to these parties but because they were fed up with being ignored. Obviously they make their protest and we are now reaping the results but my point is that these people should NOT be ignored.

People are saying Obama will never win again because people are against him but I still know a lot of people in the Northeast and California who would follow him of a cliff and my guess is they will next year. The man is down but not out. We would be good to remember that!!

[Heartland Patriot]

All Voters: Please recall that this is a Two-Party Democracy. Please fill-out your ballot appropriately.

I'm not sure if you are being serious or sarcastic, and its your business either way, but that is the reality right now. And I agree with many others, that if you don't vote for one, you are helping the other one to win. The sad part of our system is that you don't necessarily vote only FOR a party, but you also vote AGAINST the other one. And I will NOT vote for the one that favors things like "assault weapons bans", "assault clips bans", bans on "shoulder things that go up" or any other such shenanigans. I lived in California at the behest of our Uncle Sam for quite a number of years, and I sure don't want to see any of that mess, gun-wise, go national in the future.