Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As some people know, I am a Paul supporter and have been since 2007. That said, in the general election I am for "anyone but Obama.". Or at least I WAS. I never liked Santorum's brand of republicanism that espouses interfering in people's private lives, and spending like a democrat, but I WAS willing to vote for him against Obama as the lesser of two evils. That was yesterday. Today I believe him to be equal in his evilness. If he wins the nomination, I cannot pull the lever for him in good conscience. I guess I will have to vote for some third party candidate. He just lost the vote of the libertarians and many independents. How could he be so stupid? "I want to strongly fight Libertarian influence in the republican party.". Rick Santorum
How far we have fallen. "If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.". --Ronald Reagan
It was Ronald Reagan who first threw red meat to evangelical Christians, luring them into the party, so you can blame him if you do not like the GOP's strong social and religious conservatism.
And Reagan--exactly like Rick Santorum--was a big government spender and was the first president in modern US history who first gave us these extraordinarily large federal government deficits. It took a Democratic president--Bill Clinton--to eventually get us back into the black, largely by cutting defense spending.
So your argument against Santorum--and then quoting Reagan--makes no logical sense.
It was Ronald Reagan who first welcomed evangelical Christians into the GOP with open arms, so you can blame him if you do not like the GOP's strong social and religious conservatism.
And Reagan--exactly like Rick Santorum--was a big government spender and was the first president in modern US history who first gave us these extraordinarily large federal government deficits. Deficits, which I might add, that were later cleaned up by a Democratic president Bill Clinton.
So your argument against Santorum--and then quoting Reagan--makes no logical sense.
Your points are debatable and would make a good thread of its own? Debating it here would get us far off the track of the "meat" of my argument. I'm not going to go there, so if it helps to stay on point, just pretend that comment is not part of the post. I actually saw this coming, and almost didn't type it for that very reason, as it is not really relevant, maybe I shouldn't have.
As some people know, I am a Paul supporter and have been since 2007. That said, in the general election I am for "anyone but Obama.". Or at least I WAS. I never liked Santorum's brand of republicanism that espouses interfering in people's private lives, and spending like a democrat, but I WAS willing to vote for him against Obama as the lesser of two evils. That was yesterday. Today I believe him to be equal in his evilness. If he wins the nomination, I cannot pull the lever for him in good conscience. I guess I will have to vote for some third party candidate. He just lost the vote of the libertarians and many independents. How could he be so stupid? "I want to strongly fight Libertarian influence in the republican party.". Rick Santorum
How far we have fallen. "If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.". --Ronald Reagan
.
.
.
.
Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I am a Conservative, not a libertarian. However, I believe our POTUS has a responsibility to uphold his oath of office to support and defend the US from all enemies foreign and domestic. Those who would try to undermine the Constitution are indeed the "enemies within".
Santorum has no wish to defend the US Consitution. His style of evangelical republicanism is large government with the oval office as the pulpit from which he plans to minister. It is every bit as totalitarian as that which Obama seeks to institute only leaning to the theocratic instead of aethist.
Why the heck does he think that within the GOP those who are libertarian leaning want "no government"? That is so dishonest. And the earmark comment made no sense. Ron Paul talks about using earmarks as a means to keep from handing over more power of the purse to the Executive Branch.
Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I am a Conservative, not a libertarian. However, I believe our POTUS has a responsibility to uphold his oath of office to support and defend the US from all enemies foreign and domestic. Those who would try to undermine the Constitution are indeed the "enemies within".
Santorum has no wish to defend the US Consitution. His style of evangelical republicanism is large government with the oval office as the pulpit from which he plans to minister. It is every bit as totalitarian as that which Obama seeks to institute only leaning to the theocratic instead of aethist.
Why the heck does he think that within the GOP those who are libertarian leaning want "no government"? That is so dishonest. And the earmark comment made no sense. Ron Paul talks about using earmarks as a means to keep from handing over more power of the purse to the Executive Branch.
You're welcome, and I agree with everything you just said.
And i want to add that this is not really a pro/anti Paul argument that I am trying to make. It is an ideological argument. If Santorum wants to remove the idea of freedom, liberty and small government from the republican platform, he is going to lose a lot of voters. As much as Obama is a failure as a president, I would rather see him in office for 4 more years than to see the republican party's platform take a turn in the wrong direction until irreparable damage is done. If the differences between a D and an R is intrusion vs freedom, the GOP is my party. If the difference between a D and an R is over WHICH freedoms to curtail, then both parties have lost me.
Just to provide some insight into Rick Santorum's time in the Senate. He wasn't very well liked while in office. His fellow republicans had a standing joke about him. "Santorum is latin for Posterior Orafice".
You're welcome, and I agree with everything you just said.
And i want to add that this is not really a pro/anti Paul argument that I am trying to make. It is an ideological argument. If Santorum wants to remove the idea of freedom, liberty and small government from the republican platform, he is going to lose a lot of voters. As much as Obama is a failure as a president, I would rather see him in office for 4 more years than to see the republican party's platform take a turn in the wrong direction until irreparable damage is done. If the differences between a D and an R is intrusion vs freedom, the GOP is my party. If the difference between a D and an R is over WHICH freedoms to curtail, then both parties have lost me.
Yes, yes! We want the Saint! Go for the Saint! Saintorum that is! We need the Saint to combat that "Foreign devil Obama"!
This why I am liking the battle that is going on right now. Sure, it exposes all of the candidates imperfections, not to mention views that one or the other of us might not like.
But, just as in the long, drawn out, bruising and ugly primary battle by the Democratic Party in 2008, it was not over, until Hillary Clinton conceded in June.
I am like the Doc in that I'm ABO. Otherwise, still reading, watching and listening.
You're welcome, and I agree with everything you just said.
And i want to add that this is not really a pro/anti Paul argument that I am trying to make. It is an ideological argument. If Santorum wants to remove the idea of freedom, liberty and small government from the republican platform, he is going to lose a lot of voters. As much as Obama is a failure as a president, I would rather see him in office for 4 more years than to see the republican party's platform take a turn in the wrong direction until irreparable damage is done. If the differences between a D and an R is intrusion vs freedom, the GOP is my party. If the difference between a D and an R is over WHICH freedoms to curtail, then both parties have lost me.
I can't go that far. The damage the GOP has done to itself is already complete. The GOP label means nothing; the party is forever fractured. It is the individual man, his character, and his record which counts.
The damage to be done by Obama appointing one or two more justices to the Supreme Court is something from which the rule of law in this nation will never recover.
I can't go that far. The damage the GOP has done to itself is already done. The GOP label means nothing.
The damage to be done by Obama appointing one or two more justices to the Supreme Court is something from which the rule of law in this nation will never recover.
I can't really argue with you there, and wouldn't fault you for voting for whoever you think would be better...or less bad...for the country. I couldn't sleep at night voting for either of the two. I just hope it doesn't come down to that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
