Romney Beats Santorum by 8 Votes and Ron Paul Finishes with Strong Third Place

[mav]

Libertarian polices BTW will certainly not keep the ship afloat.

I can understand why some might not like Paul, but geeze, have you actually looked at what Paul has proposed under his domestic agenda? Obviously not, otherwise you wouldn't make such statements. There is not a single candidate running, outside of Johnson (who is running on the libertarian ticket), that comes even close to the aggressiveness of Paul's domestic agenda. Even Rush Limbaugh, who is no fan of Paul, said that Paul's plan is the type Republicans should be promoting.

Let's see:

1. Paul proposes to cut $1 trillion the first year in office.

2. Paul proposes balancing the budget within the first three years of his presidency. The only other candidate even considering it is Perry, and his proposal is for having it done by 2020.

3. Paul proposes cuting the federal workforce by 10%.

4. Paul proposes repealing Obamacar, Sarbanes/Oxley, Dodd/Frank.

5. Paul proposes eliminating five cabinet level agencies.

6. Paul proposes lowering the coporate tax rate to 15%, abolish the death tax, end taxes on personal savings, no additional taxation on repatriated capital, etc...

7. Paul proposes canceling all previous executive orders which lead to ridiculous new regulations.

If those aren't ideas for keeping the ship afloat, I don't know what is.

Sarah Palin was talking the other day about how good Paul's fiscal proposals are, and how the GOP needs to take them serious. If Paul was more hawkish, the talk show media would be orgasmic over having such a good candidate.

By making such statements you are insulting the intelligence of a lot of people who do support Paul and are not Paulbots or whatever they are called. All you end up doing is showing that an anti-Paulbot is just as bad as a Paulbot.

[kieefer]

I can understand why some might not like Paul, but geeze, have you actually looked at what Paul has proposed under his domestic agenda? Obviously not, otherwise you wouldn't make such statements. There is not a single candidate running, outside of Johnson (who is running on the libertarian ticket), that comes even close to the aggressiveness of Paul's domestic agenda. Even Rush Limbaugh, who is no fan of Paul, said that Paul's plan is the type Republicans should be promoting.

Let's see:

1. Paul proposes to cut $1 trillion the first year in office.

2. Paul proposes balancing the budget within the first three years of his presidency. The only other candidate even considering it is Perry, and his proposal is for having it done by 2020.

3. Paul proposes cuting the federal workforce by 10%.

4. Paul proposes repealing Obamacar, Sarbanes/Oxley, Dodd/Frank.

5. Paul proposes eliminating five cabinet level agencies.

6. Paul proposes lowering the coporate tax rate to 15%, abolish the death tax, end taxes on personal savings, no additional taxation on repatriated capital, etc...

7. Paul proposes canceling all previous executive orders which lead to ridiculous new regulations.

If those aren't ideas for keeping the ship afloat, I don't know what is.

Sarah Palin was talking the other day about how good Paul's fiscal proposals are, and how the GOP needs to take them serious. If Paul was more hawkish, the talk show media would be orgasmic over having such a good candidate.

By making such statements you are insulting the intelligence of a lot of people who do support Paul and are not Paulbots or whatever they are called. All you end up doing is showing that an anti-Paulbot is just as bad as a Paulbot.

After taking the http://www.nolanchart.com/survey.php I'll have to eat my words. I was closed mindedly thinking of the foreign policy aspect of Paul's views.

Granted, his economic plan is something I do agree with.

[seez52]

There are two videos, you may have seen them, but if not you should. If you watch them all the way through you'll have a better handle of Paul's foreign policy thinking. And it does make sense.

Here you go:

This one is probably one of the best I've seen:

Armed Chinese Troops in Texas! - YouTube

this gives some history and defines "blowback"

You Like Ron Paul, Except on Foreign Policy - YouTube

[kieefer]

There are two videos, you may have seen them, but if not you should. If you watch them all the way through you'll have a better handle of Paul's foreign policy thinking. And it does make sense.

Here you go:

This one is probably one of the best I've seen:

Armed Chinese Troops in Texas! - YouTube

this gives some history and defines "blowback"

You Like Ron Paul, Except on Foreign Policy - YouTube

You convinced me, if RP is the nominee I'll vote for him.

[Oh Shoot]

... I will never do it again if I have a real choice.

The only real choice is whether BHO gets a second term or not.

- OS

[sigmtnman]

Ran across this at Front Page magazine;

promoting the view that America is institutionally an oppressive nation

promoting the election of leftist political candidates throughout the United States

opposing virtually all post-9/11 national security measures enacted by U.S. government, particularly the Patriot Act

depicting American military actions as unjust, unwarranted, and immoral

promoting open borders, mass immigration, and a watering down of current immigration laws

promoting a dramatic expansion of social welfare programs funded by ever-escalating taxes

promoting social welfare benefits and amnesty for illegal aliens

defending the civil rights and liberties of suspected anti-American terrorists and their abetters

financing the recruitment and training of future activist leaders of the political Left

advocating America’s unilateral disarmament and/or a steep reduction in its military spending

opposing the death penalty in all circumstances

promoting socialized medicine in the United States

promoting the tenets of radical environmentalism, whose ultimate goal, as writer Michael Berliner has explained, is â€not clean air and clean water, [but] rather … the demolition of technological/industrial civilizationâ€

bringing American foreign policy under the control of the United Nations

promoting racial and ethnic preferences in academia and the business world alike

promoting taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand

advocating stricter gun-control measures

advocating the legalization of marijuana

I guess George Soros would also endorse RP?

Since Dr Paul does not support those things other than opposing the patriot act, I seriously doubt George Soros would support him. In fact he would probably do everything in his power to stop him.

[seez52]

You convinced me, if RP is the nominee I'll vote for him.

Excellent! I wish all Republicans would agree to do the same. It's seems we are always told that once the primary is over and the nominee is chosen, we will all hold hands and move forward together. Unfortunately there is an asterisk and some fine print. *Unless the nominee is RP, then we don't have to.

Until the party comes around, until we MAKE the party come around, we will never see a candidate fielded that has the ability to turn things around. It's a shame that we as a country, and it's people are going to be taken through hell in order to get the message across.

I am encouraged that young people seem to be open and embracing the ideas RP stands for. This fight will span more than one, two or even three election cycles and the fire will catch on. We will eventually burn down the rotted dead wood that supports the republican party. From those ashes we will begin again with the vision The Founders bequeathed to us and we will prevail with liberty and freedom and once again be the sovereign nation our forefathers sacrificed and willingly shed blood for!

[Guest 6.8 AR]

This third party nonsense should be laid to rest. I don't care if it Trump or Paul or

another Perot like midget billionaire. It still just steals elections away from one of

the two otherwise electable candidates. It takes wisdom and throws it out the

window.

My head just exploded. I just read another "Lesser of two evils" remark. When are

people going to figure out how to digest information and make up there own damned

minds, instead of being programmed by the mainstream media? Is it really that hard

to think or is it just laziness? Saying there is only a choice between the lesser of two

evils is saying you have accepted a lower standard, in other words, given up your

principles. If it is truly a choice between the lesser of two evils, there is no good

around. Get an grip on good and evil and digest that, then seek the good.

Complacency is evil.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Excellent! I wish all Republicans would agree to do the same. It's seems we are always told that once the primary is over and the nominee is chosen, we will all hold hands and move forward together. Unfortunately there is an asterisk and some fine print. *Unless the nominee is RP, then we don't have to.

Until the party comes around, until we MAKE the party come around, we will never see a candidate fielded that has the ability to turn things around. It's a shame that we as a country, and it's people are going to be taken through hell in order to get the message across.

I am encouraged that young people seem to be open and embracing the ideas RP stands for. This fight will span more than one, two or even three election cycles and the fire will catch on. We will eventually burn down the rotted dead wood that supports the republican party. From those ashes we will begin again with the vision The Founders bequeathed to us and we will prevail with liberty and freedom and once again be the sovereign nation our forefathers sacrificed and willingly shed blood for!

Unfortunately young people aren't very long term in their political thinking. I wish

would change. It seems the older one gets and the more they see what effects

things have on their surroundings, the more resolute their opinions become.

It's called growing up. Not knocking young folks at all.

I was once one:D

[seez52]

Unfortunately young people aren't very long term in their political thinking. I wish

would change. It seems the older one gets and the more they see what effects

things have on their surroundings, the more resolute their opinions become.

It's called growing up. Not knocking young folks at all.

I was once one:D

doesn't mean their resolute opinions can't settle on being for liberty and constitutional government.

BTW, love your signature. Your quote comes from my favorite speech of the whole book.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Hey Lester

I think you're right about a hypocrisy, but Reagan knew how to get a message across. Ron Paul is like an angry child throwing a temper tantrum. It has nothing to do with his ideas, as far as I'm concerned. I like damned near everything he has to say. That's how I will always differ with anyone comparing someone to Reagan. He earned the title "Great Communicator".

The only other thing you state I could disagree with is the fact that there is only a marginal difference between the two parties. The vast majority of the modern day Democratic Party are also members of the Socialist Party in this country. they have for all intents and purposes become the Communist Party of the United States. The Republican Party is chock full of big government type progressives, but not to the extent of bringing us into a Stalinist style of

government. There is still plenty to be done to clean up the Republican Party, but I think the Democrat Party has already made the ultimate leap into the land of Karl Marx and there ain't no looking back. John Maynard Keynes(?) was considered by Stalin to be a useful idiot. I can see why.

Just for the record, I took that test Beck had a link to, a while back, that surveyed and let you know what kind of political leaning you have. Mine was as libertarian as could be. All the way up in the corner by itself. My wife's was, also. I think it was called the Nolan test.

I will never question Paul's intellect and am amazed at his enthusiasm on the subjects he speaks of, but he needs a handler in the worst way. I love the bland articulate people at Reason.com. Maybe they could help him.

Yes it would be better to have a young dynamic handsome and well-spoken libertarian candidate. Harry Browne (now deceased) seemed the most personable libertarian candidate that I recall.

====

I didn't mean that there are marginal differences between the major parties. Was saying that given the task of co-opting a party closer to libertarian principles, the R party is marginally more salvagable at this time in history.

There are a fair number of libertarian-minded people in the D party, mostly personal freedom, individual rights, and privacy libertarians. However, the modern D party is so entrenched in socialism that it would be difficult/impossible to re-educate sufficient members into accepting laissez-faire capitalism. In addition, the modern D party has become increasingly onerous in the Nanny State abridging of personal freedoms. The D's have slid backwards on personal freedom issues over the years. Decades ago, the D party may have been more salvageable. At one time the D party was more attractive in the "personal freedoms" dimension than the R party and it was not so deeply entrenched in socialism.

The R party may be more salvageable because at least some of the R's still have a decent economic freedom attitude. And as time goes on, many of the theocrats have become not quite such hard-core nannies at running their neighbors personal lives and customs. However it would still be a challenging task because too many R's want to use the gov to run the lives of their neighbors, and too many don't mind big gov as long as they are in charge. It is not a matter of who is in charge of big gov. It is a matter of gov being too big regardless of who is in charge.

The right-wing nannies often share values with the left-wing nannies. Perhaps they may disagree on some topics, but the right and left wing nannies could easily make alliance on banning vitamins, drugs, cigarettes, booze, and "unhealthy" dietary choices! Perhaps the left and right wing nannies should unite to form the Nannie Party! Both sides could negotiate agreements on points of contention-- "OK we agree to criminalize flag-burning if you agree to criminalize sexist jokes." "That's fine. We will agree to ban gas-guzzling vehicles if you agree to ban gay marriage." And so on.

====

Many people honestly take the Nolan test and score extreme left, extreme right, or extreme authoritarian. Cograts on "passing" the test! Maybe it is because you were brainwashed by too much Heinlein? Heinlein is considered one of the early patron saints of libertarianism. Or perhaps the people inclined toward libertarianism are more likely to appreciate Heinlein?

This third party nonsense should be laid to rest. I don't care if it Trump or Paul or

another Perot like midget billionaire. It still just steals elections away from one of

the two otherwise electable candidates. It takes wisdom and throws it out the

window.

My head just exploded. I just read another "Lesser of two evils" remark. When are

people going to figure out how to digest information and make up there own damned

minds, instead of being programmed by the mainstream media? Is it really that hard

to think or is it just laziness? Saying there is only a choice between the lesser of two

evils is saying you have accepted a lower standard, in other words, given up your

principles. If it is truly a choice between the lesser of two evils, there is no good

around. Get an grip on good and evil and digest that, then seek the good.

Complacency is evil.

Maybe it is simple refusal to join either left wing or right wing lemmings in their march to the sea?

If we manage to elect the wrong right-winger then it invites an even worse left-winger four years hence. And so forth. An engineer might describe recent extreme cyclical political swings "a poorly damped system". Frying pan to fire and then back to frying pan again.

If the R candidate is not at least marginally fit for the job, then a significant third-party vote causing an R loss, will give the R party's brilliant number crunchers something to think about for four more years and maybe the 2016 platform will be more attractive to libertarians.

Though Obama sucks, it isn't impossible to pick somebody even worse. If Obama unfortunately does get another four years, then democrats will have DEFINITELY worn out their welcome by 2016 and an R victory will be easier and longer lasting.

I'm breaking Godwin's law, but remember that Hitler was elected because the movers and shakers knew that Hitler was insane, but they figured him a perfect useful idiot to rid Germany of the commies. Didn't work out too well. Santorum ain't the right useful idiot for the job.

[RobertNashville]

It seems to me you are assuming that the country can survivor another four years of Obummer should the R candidate, whoever that turns out to be, not win. I see us in either total economic collapse by the end of another four of Obummer or too close to the ledge to be pulled back by anyone at that point.

I WILl vote for any R against Obummer for that reason

[Guest ThePunisher]

.

Though Obama sucks, it isn't impossible to pick somebody even worse.

If this country could pick someone worse, and even more tyrannical than Obumer, then I will be convinced that the entire country has become brain dead.

[kieefer]

Since Dr Paul does not support those things other than opposing the patriot act, I seriously doubt George Soros would support him. In fact he would probably do everything in his power to stop him.

opposing virtually all post-9/11 national security measures enacted by U.S. government, particularly the Patriot Act

depicting American military actions as unjust, unwarranted, and immoral

True, believes America is responsible for 9/11

defending the civil rights and liberties of suspected anti-American terrorists and their abetters

True

Ron Paul on Foreign Policy

advocating America’s unilateral disarmament and/or a steep reduction in its military spending

True

http://patdollard.com/2012/01/the-george-sorosron-paul-connection/

opposing the death penalty in all circumstances

True

http://www.issues2000.org/2012/Ron_Paul_Crime.htm

advocating the legalization of marijuana

True

http://www.issues2000.org/tx/Ron_Paul_Drugs.htm

Edited January 7, 2012 by kieefer
coyote link?

[sigmtnman]

This third party nonsense should be laid to rest. I don't care if it Trump or Paul or

another Perot like midget billionaire. It still just steals elections away from one of

the two otherwise electable candidates. It takes wisdom and throws it out the

window.

My head just exploded. I just read another "Lesser of two evils" remark. When are

people going to figure out how to digest information and make up there own damned

minds, instead of being programmed by the mainstream media? Is it really that hard

to think or is it just laziness? Saying there is only a choice between the lesser of two

evils is saying you have accepted a lower standard, in other words, given up your

principles. If it is truly a choice between the lesser of two evils, there is no good

around. Get an grip on good and evil and digest that, then seek the good.

Complacency is evil.

Why should we be limited to who two national party tell us who to vote for? It poses a false dichotomy and limits the choices. In business, what happens if there are only allowed to be two who perform like functions? Historically, the more successful one either buys out the other as a takeover or as a holding company leaving the original in tact by name only; or they work together covertly to fix prices. It would seem this is the current situation and it is being furthered by the media owners agenda.

To tell someone they should not vote for a third party and must pick one of the two provided by the system, no matter if one agrees with their policies, forces folks to pick the lesser of two evils whether we like hearing the saying or not.

[sigmtnman]

opposing virtually all post-9/11 national security measures enacted by U.S. government, particularly the Patriot Act

depicting American military actions as unjust, unwarranted, and immoral

True, believes America is responsible for 9/11

--This one I said was true. It is the whole blowback thing.

defending the civil rights and liberties of suspected anti-American terrorists and their abetters

True

Ron Paul on Foreign Policy

--Partially False- This makes it sound like he is for civil rights for foriegners and he is not. He only believes this for US Citizens and coincidentally the Constitution is his bases for it.

advocating America’s unilateral disarmament and/or a steep reduction in its military spending

True

]Colorado 9-Year-Old Whacks Coyote With Snowboard To Stop Attack at Pat Dollard[/color]

-False - not sure what a Coyote has to do with it as the link is broken, but he is only for reducing the military spending necessary to occupy other sovereign nations which would be a steep reduction in spending. He is not for unilateral disarmament. He believes that if someone does wrong to us, the congress should identify enemy, declare war against said enemy, stomp the crap out of them, then come back home. If they do it again, stomp them again and come back home.

opposing the death penalty in all circumstances

True

Ron Paul on Crime

--Yes he does oppose the death penalty which I don't agree with, but you it's impossible agree with all views of a single candidate. One thing though is that as a Christian he believes in the sanctity of all life. The thing though is that whether he agrees with it or not, he feels it is up to the State to decide if it should be legal and if a state does or does not, then the Fed has no place in it. That is part of the misunderstanding of Dr. Paul.

advocating the legalization of marijuana

True

http://www.issues2000.org/tx/Ron_Paul_Drugs.htm

--False -- He believes that the Federal government has no place under the Constitution telling states what to do about drugs and is for Federal decriminalization.. Let the states decide how they want to handle it. Decriminalization at the Federal level does not equal legalization.

[sigmtnman]

It seems to me you are assuming that the country can survivor another four years of Obummer should the R candidate, whoever that turns out to be, not win. I see us in either total economic collapse by the end of another four of Obummer or too close to the ledge to be pulled back by anyone at that point.

I WILl vote for any R against Obummer for that reason

It would seem lots of folks want to have their cake and eat it too.

Over and over people say Dr. Paul could not make any changes as President because he would need the support of Congress. Yet for some reason Obammy is single handedly able to do it regardless of Congress.

[kieefer]

not sure how that coyote link got in there?

correct link - The George Soros/Ron Paul Connection at Pat Dollard

I don't think we will need to worry about RP much longer anyway, after tonight's debate I'm sure everyone will be talking about RickS being a homophobe and the attacks against him.

Romney will sadly come out on top.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

doesn't mean their resolute opinions can't settle on being for liberty and constitutional government.

BTW, love your signature. Your quote comes from my favorite speech of the whole book.

I'd say they usually do after a long arduous process called life. Like I said, I'm not criticizing the youth at all. They are much more impressionable because of a lack of life experiences. It all can't and shouldn't be taught at school. I'm beginning to believe most of the junk I was taught was just that:junk!

Thanks, its mine, too. It's one of the best explanations of capitalism there is.

[kieefer]

It would seem lots of folks want to have their cake and eat it too. Over and over people say Dr. Paul could not make any changes as President because he would need the support of Congress. Yet for some reason Obammy is single handedly able to do it regardless of Congress.

Wrong, his first 2yrs he had full support and we continue to see the effects. He has only loss the House. Edited January 7, 2012 by kieefer

[mav]

opposing virtually all post-9/11 national security measures enacted by U.S. government, particularly the Patriot Act

depicting American military actions as unjust, unwarranted, and immoral

True, believes America is responsible for 9/11

defending the civil rights and liberties of suspected anti-American terrorists and their abetters

True

Ron Paul on Foreign Policy

advocating America’s unilateral disarmament and/or a steep reduction in its military spending

True

]Colorado 9-Year-Old Whacks Coyote With Snowboard To Stop Attack at Pat Dollard[/color]

opposing the death penalty in all circumstances

True

Ron Paul on Crime

advocating the legalization of marijuana

True

http://www.issues2000.org/tx/Ron_Paul_Drugs.htm

You have listed just 5 of the original 17 you posted. Some of those are false, but for argument's sake let's say they are true. That is less than 30%. If you went down the original list you posted and see how Obama fairs on all of those points, I believe you would come up with 94%. I know I am not very intelligent since I am a Paul supporter, but I don't see how Soros could support a guy like Paul, who he is in agreement with on less than 30% of the issues, over Obama who he agrees with on 94% of the issues. 30 vs 94, hmmm. I am gonna have to really think about that one.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Why should we be limited to who two national party tell us who to vote for? It poses a false dichotomy and limits the choices. In business, what happens if there are only allowed to be two who perform like functions? Historically, the more successful one either buys out the other as a takeover or as a holding company leaving the original in tact by name only; or they work together covertly to fix prices. It would seem this is the current situation and it is being furthered by the media owners agenda.

To tell someone they should not vote for a third party and must pick one of the two provided by the system, no matter if one agrees with their policies, forces folks to pick the lesser of two evils whether we like hearing the saying or not.

I'm not saying we shouldn't have a third party. It just doesn't fit in as well as forcing a

change on one or the other of the parties. History tells that story. Usually the strong

third party candidate spoils against one of the others and gives us a Bill Clinton. I'm

still of the camp that Bill Clinton caused more damage than most people are willing to

believe. i would rather a Tea Party movement take over the Republican, one way or

another, because there are more people in that party who believe in the Constitutional

principles like libertarians do. I don't think the Libertarian Party has enough to do the

job without them. any way that could be accomplished would be rough on some.

That's just the way I see doing it. There aren't enough Libertarians, except in our

minds and wishful thinking doesn't change anything. You have to have a goal before

you can accomplish it.

[mav]

Over and over people say Dr. Paul could not make any changes as President because he would need the support of Congress. Yet for some reason Obammy is single handedly able to do it regardless of Congress.

Lets set aside that argument. One thing that we do know Paul will do and doesn't need any approval from congress is dramatically reduce the overreach of the executive branch. Getting control of one branch of government is a positive move. I don't see any of the other candidates willing to reduce the power of the executive branch back to its constitutional limits.

[mav]

I'm not saying we shouldn't have a third party.

I am for multiple parties. However, multiple parties need to start and achieve success at the local and state level and then move to the federal level. That is the only way I can see how an effective multiple party system can be established. Trying to start at the very top and work your way down is the exact opposite of what is needed, and has the least probablity of success.

[kieefer]

You have listed just 5 of the original 17 you posted. Some of those are false, but for argument's sake let's say they are true. That is less than 30%. If you went down the original list you posted and see how Obama fairs on all of those points, I believe you would come up with 94%. I know I am not very intelligent since I am a Paul supporter, but I don't see how Soros could support a guy like Paul, who he is in agreement with on less than 30% of the issues, over Obama who he agrees with on 94% of the issues. 30 vs 94, hmmm. I am gonna have to really think about that one.

I found the links interesting in that Soros and his groups do show a support for Paul and encouraging democrats to become what they call Blue Republicans, yet his supporters tout him as the only conservative? Odd isn't it.