New Presidential Poll

Ziggy116 wrote:

jimbojones1950 wrote:

Just wondering how Santorum's religion would be "forced" on the people? Not saying Im a fan of Santorum, but I often hear this fear tactic spread about any conservative candidate that is religous. Just wondering what is meant by that or some examples of how it would be "forced" on the people...

I don't really have the time to pull specific quotes but I've heard from him and from news sources that he is very concerned with religion in our schools, specifically creationism. I don't like that at all.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/30/rick-santorum-creationism_n_1120766.html

I too do not like the idea of creationism being taught in schools, but defer that to localities and states. As for Santorum's beliefs, I disagree with him on that issue entirely. However, is this the only issue of religion being "forced" on the people? Is an issue like this enough to get someone to vote for another candidate or incumbent who follows an economic model that has proven not to work? I guess it comes down to what the most important issue is to you. Is it the economy and financial future of our nation, or the idea that some localities would be allowed to vote in favor of teaching creationism along side evolution? I guess what I'm trying to ask is if the Ron Paul supporters would vote for Santorum, Romney, or Gingrich if one those three got the Republican nomination over Paul, in the election against President Obama.

jimbojones1950 wrote:

Ziggy116 wrote:

jimbojones1950 wrote:

Just wondering how Santorum's religion would be "forced" on the people? Not saying Im a fan of Santorum, but I often hear this fear tactic spread about any conservative candidate that is religous. Just wondering what is meant by that or some examples of how it would be "forced" on the people...

I don't really have the time to pull specific quotes but I've heard from him and from news sources that he is very concerned with religion in our schools, specifically creationism. I don't like that at all.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/30/rick-santorum-creationism_n_1120766.html

I too do not like the idea of creationism being taught in schools, but defer that to localities and states. As for Santorum's beliefs, I disagree with him on that issue entirely. However, is this the only issue of religion being "forced" on the people? Is an issue like this enough to get someone to vote for another candidate or incumbent who follows an economic model that has proven not to work? I guess it comes down to what the most important issue is to you. Is it the economy and financial future of our nation, or the idea that some localities would be allowed to vote in favor of teaching creationism along side evolution? I guess what I'm trying to ask is if the Ron Paul supporters would vote for Santorum, Romney, or Gingrich if one those three got the Republican nomination over Paul, in the election against President Obama.

It's hard to say but it's a great question and I'm guessing it would get very different answers. For me, not voting for Obama goes no further than the fact that I think he is racially biased just off of the issues from early in his presidency that resulted in the ridiculous beer summit at the white house. Not saying he's a racist, but in that instant he looked at race first, situation second. Also, he studied constitutional law and preached to be a big believer in it, but said that Don Imus should've been fired for the nappy headed hoes comment. I hate anyone that is against free speech or only agrees with it when it benefits them. There are other issues I have with him but those 2 are big ones for me personally.

As far as Santorum goes, I don't think his religion ends with that topic and my gut tells me religion will be a big part of his presidency and there is no reason for that to be in the presidents top 100 issues....kinda like commercial volume. It all really disgusts me

jimbojones1950 wrote:

Ziggy116 wrote:

jimbojones1950 wrote:

Just wondering how Santorum's religion would be "forced" on the people? Not saying Im a fan of Santorum, but I often hear this fear tactic spread about any conservative candidate that is religous. Just wondering what is meant by that or some examples of how it would be "forced" on the people...

I don't really have the time to pull specific quotes but I've heard from him and from news sources that he is very concerned with religion in our schools, specifically creationism. I don't like that at all.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/30/rick-santorum-creationism_n_1120766.html

I too do not like the idea of creationism being taught in schools, but defer that to localities and states. As for Santorum's beliefs, I disagree with him on that issue entirely. However, is this the only issue of religion being "forced" on the people? Is an issue like this enough to get someone to vote for another candidate or incumbent who follows an economic model that has proven not to work? I guess it comes down to what the most important issue is to you. Is it the economy and financial future of our nation, or the idea that some localities would be allowed to vote in favor of teaching creationism along side evolution? I guess what I'm trying to ask is if the Ron Paul supporters would vote for Santorum, Romney, or Gingrich if one those three got the Republican nomination over Paul, in the election against President Obama.

Here is the problem, Santorum is a big government neo-con. The only thing that makes people thing he is conservative is that he hates muslims and gays and is pro-life. He seriously is a religious nut job. And he supports the department of education which means he can actually try to influence it so that creationism is taught in all public schools. It is not up to schools and localities. Not since the federal government got involved in education and made our education levels dramatically drop and prices soar.

Let's actually look at the voting record of Santorum to prove that he is not "a true conservative" but rather a racist homophobic war mongering socialist.

He voted with extreme liberal brabra boxer to restrict 2nd amendment rights
Votes to increase the debt limit
big government programs that hurt the economy like CAFTA
Voted to tax the internet
Voted for the department of homeland security which is now treating americans like terrorists
Voted to Invade Iraq
Voted for No Child left behind
Voted for the Military Comissions act which is more anti-liberty legislation
Voted to bailout the airline industry which dumped 15 billion on tax payers
He has actually said there is no right to privacy in the constitution
Voted to expand Medicare drug subsidies
He is a trigger happy warhawk who has said several times he wouldn't hesitate to pre-emptively bomb Iran
Votes to increase funding for the wasteful failure of the department of education

Let's face it. Santorum is not a conservative, not by his voting record at least. He is just another big spending Rockefeller republican and that is really no different from what Romney is, or even Obama for that matter.

jimbojones1950 wrote:

Ziggy116 wrote:

jimbojones1950 wrote:

Just wondering how Santorum's religion would be "forced" on the people? Not saying Im a fan of Santorum, but I often hear this fear tactic spread about any conservative candidate that is religous. Just wondering what is meant by that or some examples of how it would be "forced" on the people...

I don't really have the time to pull specific quotes but I've heard from him and from news sources that he is very concerned with religion in our schools, specifically creationism. I don't like that at all.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/30/rick-santorum-creationism_n_1120766.html

I too do not like the idea of creationism being taught in schools, but defer that to localities and states. As for Santorum's beliefs, I disagree with him on that issue entirely. However, is this the only issue of religion being "forced" on the people? Is an issue like this enough to get someone to vote for another candidate or incumbent who follows an economic model that has proven not to work? I guess it comes down to what the most important issue is to you. Is it the economy and financial future of our nation, or the idea that some localities would be allowed to vote in favor of teaching creationism along side evolution? I guess what I'm trying to ask is if the Ron Paul supporters would vote for Santorum, Romney, or Gingrich if one those three got the Republican nomination over Paul, in the election against President Obama.

An no. No Ron Paul supporters i know would ever back any of these other candidates, because they simply do not propose any real change in government philosophy, they represent the status quo. Changing the status quo of gigantic socialist government policy that is clearly not sustainable is why Ron Paul is running in the first place. This is not a popularity contest for his supporters, they are obviously the most passionate and that is because it is his message that inspires them. Backing someone like Romney or Obama, who are basically the same and vote the same way across the board basically, does not accomplish anything for people who are trying to restore liberty and restore our constitutional republic.

So what would the Ron Paul supporters do then? Vote Obama? Not vote? Vote for whatever 3rd party that has no remote shot?

i see no point in voting for the lesser of 2 evils because it's the evil of 2 lessers.

oggy420 wrote:

i see no point in voting for the lesser of 2 evils because it's the evil of 2 lessers.

So what do you mean by this? You simply wouldn't vote? A vote for a 3rd party candidate is the same as not voting as well.

Well, based on your positions, wouldn't you want to vote for whichever of the two candidates is most conservative, whether it be Obama vs. Romney, Santorum or Gingrich? Wouldn't abstaining from voting, considering your socially conservative views, only give the least conservative candidate (President Obama), a better chance at re-election?

OU wrote:

oggy420 wrote:

i see no point in voting for the lesser of 2 evils because it's the evil of 2 lessers.

So what do you mean by this? You simply wouldn't vote? A vote for a 3rd party candidate is the same as not voting as well.

I still think a vote for Paul will end up being a vote for Obama. I just don't see this country as a whole ready to 100% embrace an independant. For as many supporters as he has, I would be shocked if he finishes higher than 3rd in November.

Ziggy116 wrote:

OU wrote:

oggy420 wrote:

i see no point in voting for the lesser of 2 evils because it's the evil of 2 lessers.

So what do you mean by this? You simply wouldn't vote? A vote for a 3rd party candidate is the same as not voting as well.

I still think a vote for Paul will end up being a vote for Obama. I just don't see this country as a whole ready to 100% embrace an independant. For as many supporters as he has, I would be shocked if he finishes higher than 3rd in November.

Independent is a vote for no one. I wouldn't bother waiting in line just to waste my vote.

jimbojones1950 wrote:

Well, based on your positions, wouldn't you want to vote for whichever of the two candidates is most conservative, whether it be Obama vs. Romney, Santorum or Gingrich? Wouldn't abstaining from voting, considering your socially conservative views, only give the least conservative candidate (President Obama), a better chance at re-election?

not really. Most of them are not really conservative. If you go by the voting record, and the consistency of their records, Newt and Romney, even Santorum, are basically big government neo-cons who just think establishment run big government is fine as longs as "republicans" are in charge. If you disagree we can look at their records. Romney is a notorious flip flopper who will say whatever people want to hear.


Is anyone still pushing Newt?


Rick Santorum who says rape victims cant get an abortion because it's too traumatizing? And i already talked about his big government voting record above.

I cant support any of those candidates. I can't support Obama either. It's honestly just Ron Paul or no one for me unless one of these pricks dramatically changes their views in the coming months which i don't think is going to happen.

Though you disagree with Santorum's comment on rape victims, isn't he taking the conservative position by being pro-life, which equates to overturning Roe v. Wade and making that a state issue, not a federal issue, thereby decreasing the reach the federal government has over the states? Being pro-choice and pro- federal endorsement of same are two different things. Also, isn't Santorum against the regulatory power of the EPA. That is a huge difference between even the establishment Republicans and Democrats and since you are a Paul supporter (and therefore a social conservative), shouldn't you side with that position, and therefore, vote in accordance with the candidate who has the most in common with your beliefs, even if by most that means say 10% of his platforms? Otherwise, you would be wasting your vote by abstaining and helping an incumbent, who you agree with less then any of the establishment Republicans, regain office, and therefore, taking the country even further away from Paul's vision then the establishment Republican would.

jimbojones1950 wrote:

Though you disagree with Santorum's comment on rape victims, isn't he taking the conservative position by being pro-life, which equates to overturning Roe v. Wade and making that a state issue, not a federal issue, thereby decreasing the reach the federal government has over the states? Being pro-choice and pro- federal endorsement of same are two different things. Also, isn't Santorum against the regulatory power of the EPA. That is a huge difference between even the establishment Republicans and Democrats and since you are a Paul supporter (and therefore a social conservative), shouldn't you side with that position, and therefore, vote in accordance with the candidate who has the most in common with your beliefs, even if by most that means say 10% of his platforms? Otherwise, you would be wasting your vote by abstaining and helping an incumbent, who you agree with less then any of the establishment Republicans, regain office, and therefore, taking the country even further away from Paul's vision then the establishment Republican would.

i could never justify voting for santorum simply because he is pro life. In the times we live in that is not the 1st thing on my agenda at all. We need to get spending under control. Santorum's record shows that he is not a fiscal conservative. Not for small government. And his foreign policy is frightening, like honestly frightening. We could honestly be in all out nuclear war within months if he wins. He really disgusts me when it comes to how he views Islam and muslims. He supports the racist stereotype that all muslims are terrorists and claims that these wars are "spreading our good will" around the world for all. He pushes his religion and evangelical views way too much and it clearly effects his policy making. And i am not ok with how he bashes gay people either. He supports anti-liberty legislation all the time and says american citizens do not have any right to privacy and are not protected by the constitution. There is no way i could ever vote for him. I wouldn't be able to sleep at night knowing a trigger happy nut job who's never been in a war like Ron Paul has is going to start a nuclear holocaust and have his religious views pushed in schools.

In all fairness, there is no "right to privacy" per se in the Constitution, so I don't know what the context was that he made that statement. I only made the comment about abortion as an example that he has conservative positions. Further, my overall point was that a voter should vote for the candidate that he shares the most in common with, or otherwise, he aides the candidate who he has less in common with, from a political standpoint. But how about being against the regulatory power of the EPA? That certainly goes towards spending and jobs in this country. Is there another Republican you would vote for over Obama other then Paul and what to you, is the most pressing and important issue in this election that would warrant a candidate getting your vote over Obama?

oggy420 wrote:

jimbojones1950 wrote:

Though you disagree with Santorum's comment on rape victims, isn't he taking the conservative position by being pro-life, which equates to overturning Roe v. Wade and making that a state issue, not a federal issue, thereby decreasing the reach the federal government has over the states? Being pro-choice and pro- federal endorsement of same are two different things. Also, isn't Santorum against the regulatory power of the EPA. That is a huge difference between even the establishment Republicans and Democrats and since you are a Paul supporter (and therefore a social conservative), shouldn't you side with that position, and therefore, vote in accordance with the candidate who has the most in common with your beliefs, even if by most that means say 10% of his platforms? Otherwise, you would be wasting your vote by abstaining and helping an incumbent, who you agree with less then any of the establishment Republicans, regain office, and therefore, taking the country even further away from Paul's vision then the establishment Republican would.

i could never justify voting for santorum simply because he is pro life. In the times we live in that is not the 1st thing on my agenda at all. We need to get spending under control. Santorum's record shows that he is not a fiscal conservative. Not for small government. And his foreign policy is frightening, like honestly frightening. We could honestly be in all out nuclear war within months if he wins. He really disgusts me when it comes to how he views Islam and muslims. He supports the racist stereotype that all muslims are terrorists and claims that these wars are "spreading our good will" around the world for all. He pushes his religion and evangelical views way too much and it clearly effects his policy making. And i am not ok with how he bashes gay people either. He supports anti-liberty legislation all the time and says american citizens do not have any right to privacy and are not protected by the constitution. There is no way i could ever vote for him. I wouldn't be able to sleep at night knowing a trigger happy nut job who's never been in a war like Ron Paul has is going to start a nuclear holocaust and have his religious views pushed in schools.

Oggy you are giving WAY more power to the preisdent than they have. Nuclear holocaust within months? Come on man.

As far as racial stereotyping/profiling whatever, do you think it's more appropriate to check a middle eastern guy or a 75 year old chinese lady at airport security? If you're going after Hell's Angels you look for bikers, if you're going after the Mafia you're watching Italians. Profiling works to an extent.

Damn I think Oggy went too far to one extreme that he lost all objectivity.

jimbojones1950 wrote:

In all fairness, there is no "right to privacy" per se in the Constitution, so I don't know what the context was that he made that statement. I only made the comment about abortion as an example that he has conservative positions. Further, my overall point was that a voter should vote for the candidate that he shares the most in common with, or otherwise, he aides the candidate who he has less in common with, from a political standpoint. But how about being against the regulatory power of the EPA? That certainly goes towards spending and jobs in this country. Is there another Republican you would vote for over Obama other then Paul and what to you, is the most pressing and important issue in this election that would warrant a candidate getting your vote over Obama?

This guy actually stated recently that the fundamental rights to “Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness,” as set forth in the Declaration of Independence by America’s founding fathers, does not include any individual’s right to pursue his or her own wants and desires.
In short, we don’t enjoy the right in America to pursue our own version of life, liberty and happiness according to Rick Santorum.

“The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire,” says Rick Santorum.
Rick Santorum fervently believes that the state has an absolute right to prevent you from scratching your own itch. All it has to do is pass a law, says Rick.
“The elementary error of relativism becomes clear when we look at multiculturalism. Sometime in the 1980s, universities began to champion the importance of “diversity” as a central educational value… The goal of diversity is wrong.”

Rick Santorum on the War on Terror: “The war against Islamic fascism will be won or lost in America.” “We have a great game plan [in Iraq], and Rumsfeld does fine job.” “War in Iraq is one front in war on Islamic fascism.” “Iran is at the heart of the Iraq war.” “The idea that the Crusades and the fight of Christendom against Islam is somehow an aggression on our part is absolutely anti-historical.”

Rick Santorum on big government: “Candidly, I believe most corporations actually don't mind big government.”

Rick Santorum on poverty in America: “Poor children should have to suffer hunger and other ills to prevent them from developing the sense of entitlement that comes from relying on government social programs... "

Rick Santorum, as a U.S. Senator, voted YES on recommending a Constitutional ban on flag desecration; YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping; YES on increasing penalties for drug offenses; YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act; and YES on extending the PATRIOT Act's wiretap provisions. Also has shown support for NDAA rights to detain American Citizens indefinitely in secret CIA military prisons. Support for torture of American citizens as well as assassinations of citizens.
Rick Santorum voted NO on preserving habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees; and NO on requiring CIA reports on detainees & interrogation methods.

This is not a man who even comes close to representing my beliefs as an American.

All I have to say is Mitt Romney's eyebrows inspire leadership.

Ziggy116 wrote:

oggy420 wrote:

jimbojones1950 wrote:

Though you disagree with Santorum's comment on rape victims, isn't he taking the conservative position by being pro-life, which equates to overturning Roe v. Wade and making that a state issue, not a federal issue, thereby decreasing the reach the federal government has over the states? Being pro-choice and pro- federal endorsement of same are two different things. Also, isn't Santorum against the regulatory power of the EPA. That is a huge difference between even the establishment Republicans and Democrats and since you are a Paul supporter (and therefore a social conservative), shouldn't you side with that position, and therefore, vote in accordance with the candidate who has the most in common with your beliefs, even if by most that means say 10% of his platforms? Otherwise, you would be wasting your vote by abstaining and helping an incumbent, who you agree with less then any of the establishment Republicans, regain office, and therefore, taking the country even further away from Paul's vision then the establishment Republican would.

i could never justify voting for santorum simply because he is pro life. In the times we live in that is not the 1st thing on my agenda at all. We need to get spending under control. Santorum's record shows that he is not a fiscal conservative. Not for small government. And his foreign policy is frightening, like honestly frightening. We could honestly be in all out nuclear war within months if he wins. He really disgusts me when it comes to how he views Islam and muslims. He supports the racist stereotype that all muslims are terrorists and claims that these wars are "spreading our good will" around the world for all. He pushes his religion and evangelical views way too much and it clearly effects his policy making. And i am not ok with how he bashes gay people either. He supports anti-liberty legislation all the time and says american citizens do not have any right to privacy and are not protected by the constitution. There is no way i could ever vote for him. I wouldn't be able to sleep at night knowing a trigger happy nut job who's never been in a war like Ron Paul has is going to start a nuclear holocaust and have his religious views pushed in schools.

Oggy you are giving WAY more power to the preisdent than they have. Nuclear holocaust within months? Come on man.

As far as racial stereotyping/profiling whatever, do you think it's more appropriate to check a middle eastern guy or a 75 year old chinese lady at airport security? If you're going after Hell's Angels you look for bikers, if you're going after the Mafia you're watching Italians. Profiling works to an extent.

So why at airports do 5 year old white children get groped by tsa agents and my 60 year old aunt is pulled into a room and interrogated and told she has explsovies on her? And the muslims you claim we should be stereotyping walk right through without a hitch?
and have you even been paying attention to our foreign policy? we are creating more enemies than we can kill for god sake.

OU wrote:

Damn I think Oggy went too far to one extreme that he lost all objectivity.

i suppose i'll try to not be offended by your slanderous tone. Sorry i don't follow party lines.

oggy420 wrote:

OU wrote:

Damn I think Oggy went too far to one extreme that he lost all objectivity.

i suppose i'll try to not be offended by your slanderous tone. Sorry i don't follow party lines.

You should never be offended by anything I say, especially when it comes to politics. You are clearly more educated and passionate about it then I am. No sarcasm, straight up.
However when you go the extreme of saying this man is itching to create an all out nuclear war, I think you are letting some things cloud your judgement. Or making an extreme exaggeration just to make a point.

oggy420 wrote:

jimbojones1950 wrote:

In all fairness, there is no "right to privacy" per se in the Constitution, so I don't know what the context was that he made that statement. I only made the comment about abortion as an example that he has conservative positions. Further, my overall point was that a voter should vote for the candidate that he shares the most in common with, or otherwise, he aides the candidate who he has less in common with, from a political standpoint. But how about being against the regulatory power of the EPA? That certainly goes towards spending and jobs in this country. Is there another Republican you would vote for over Obama other then Paul and what to you, is the most pressing and important issue in this election that would warrant a candidate getting your vote over Obama?

This guy actually stated recently that the fundamental rights to “Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness,” as set forth in the Declaration of Independence by America’s founding fathers, does not include any individual’s right to pursue his or her own wants and desires.
In short, we don’t enjoy the right in America to pursue our own version of life, liberty and happiness according to Rick Santorum.

“The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire,” says Rick Santorum.
Rick Santorum fervently believes that the state has an absolute right to prevent you from scratching your own itch. All it has to do is pass a law, says Rick.
“The elementary error of relativism becomes clear when we look at multiculturalism. Sometime in the 1980s, universities began to champion the importance of “diversity” as a central educational value… The goal of diversity is wrong.”

Rick Santorum on the War on Terror: “The war against Islamic fascism will be won or lost in America.” “We have a great game plan [in Iraq], and Rumsfeld does fine job.” “War in Iraq is one front in war on Islamic fascism.” “Iran is at the heart of the Iraq war.” “The idea that the Crusades and the fight of Christendom against Islam is somehow an aggression on our part is absolutely anti-historical.”

Rick Santorum on big government: “Candidly, I believe most corporations actually don't mind big government.”

Rick Santorum on poverty in America: “Poor children should have to suffer hunger and other ills to prevent them from developing the sense of entitlement that comes from relying on government social programs... "

Rick Santorum, as a U.S. Senator, voted YES on recommending a Constitutional ban on flag desecration; YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping; YES on increasing penalties for drug offenses; YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act; and YES on extending the PATRIOT Act's wiretap provisions. Also has shown support for NDAA rights to detain American Citizens indefinitely in secret CIA military prisons. Support for torture of American citizens as well as assassinations of citizens.
Rick Santorum voted NO on preserving habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees; and NO on requiring CIA reports on detainees & interrogation methods.

This is not a man who even comes close to representing my beliefs as an American.

Ok, piece by piece...

Quote 1 - Because you provided no context for the statment, it is difficult to interpret. However, based on his statement, it appears as though he is referring to narcotic legislation/penalties, etc. While I am for legalization, that is an issue that you will find conservatives and liberals, for the most part, in agreement with each other.

Quote 2 - What he is referring to is multiculturism as seen in parts of New Mexico and Arizona where "culture classes" are teaching students misinformation and promoting the hatred of America as a nation and whites as a race. The argument goes that it causes a divide in the country (ie. no common language, no shared history, etc.). Once that happens, the country can no longer unify and eventually falls. Its not necessarily diversity that he is speaking against, but the goals of those who push multiculturism and diversity, which go far beyond mere diversity. This can be first seen when they began teaching kids that we no longer live in a melting pot, but a salad bowl (ie. leaving no unifying nature to the country...thereby promoting diverse groups to stay tight to their cultures and never adopt American culture and even go as far as to work against it).

Quote 3 - There will be no convincing you that the extremists of Islam have declared war on the US, as I already know your position since you are a Paul supporter. I like Paul's domestic policies, but as dangerous as you feel Santorum's foreign policy is, I feel the same way about Paul's.

Quote 4 - This is a statement AGAINST big government. What he is trying to do is show the connection between statists and corporatists. In that regard, the quote goes to the fact that although many label Republicans as the corporation party, it is actually the Democrats who are. For example, the big corporations are more likely to support Democrats (which is proven by Obama getting the majority of corporate donations in his 2008 election bid) because they know that Democrats work under a Keynesian economic model and will provide bailouts for poor coporate decisions (ie. crony capitalism). A true conservative supports corporation's rights to excercise and run their business freely, but does not support rigging the system and bailing out those big companies that fail. (this is where his voting record is inconsistent).

Quote 5 - You really need to provide the full quote there. However, based on what you provided, isn't he making the argument that if you give a man a fish, he eats for a day, but teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime? As a social conservative, don't you believe that we have become a population with an entitlement mentality? How do you suppose we got there? Also, if you are citing that quote to show disagreement with him, then are you saying that you support a massive welfare state, something Paul is fervently against?

jimbojones1950 wrote:

In all fairness, there is no "right to privacy" per se in the Constitution, so I don't know what the context was that he made that statement. I only made the comment about abortion as an example that he has conservative positions. Further, my overall point was that a voter should vote for the candidate that he shares the most in common with, or otherwise, he aides the candidate who he has less in common with, from a political standpoint. But how about being against the regulatory power of the EPA? That certainly goes towards spending and jobs in this country. Is there another Republican you would vote for over Obama other then Paul and what to you, is the most pressing and important issue in this election that would warrant a candidate getting your vote over Obama?

Unfortunately not. I just don't see the point in voting for Romney. Nothing will change. That's not talk, his record proves it.

And Santorum is not a serious choice. Obama would destroy him in the election anyway. If there was someone else running who represented my views even a little i wouldn't hesitate to endorse them but i just can't do it for anyone else in this election other than Ron Paul. I don't stick to party lines. I believe in small government, fiscal conservatism, and following the constitution. Ron Paul is unfortunately the only candidate who even remotely represent those ideals. Therefore i guess i will vote for Gary Johnson or not vote. I know the vote doesn't mean anything, but even if i were to choose between Romney and Obama the vote still wouldn't mean anything. Nothing would change.

jimbo it's fine if you support Santorum you have every right to. I feel the opposite about him and i would go as far as saying i hope obama would beat him. I wouldn't vote for obama but Santorum scares the shit out of me. I don't trust him for a second with that much power. Just irrational to me. My conscious wouldn't let me vote for a sociopath like that with so much hate in him. The wars are really bad now under obama but under him it would be way worse.

And zigg he said he would have pre-emptively bombed Iran already. A full out war with Iran will include super powers like China and Russia who have already said they will get involved if we attack Iran. China has a gigantic nuclear arsenal. Do you really think it is smart, on top of all of our other problems right now, to have China and the US in a cold war? With the threat of nukes being fired? Am i really the only one here that sees that our foreign policy is creating more enemies than we can afford to kill?

oggy420 wrote:

OU wrote:

Damn I think Oggy went too far to one extreme that he lost all objectivity.

i suppose i'll try to not be offended by your slanderous tone. Sorry i don't follow party lines.

I really don't think he's wrong Oggy. As much as I enjoy discussions with you, I cannot remember one time where someone said something on here and you said, "you're right I'm wrong, good point, etc" This is my point about conspiracy guys and what guys like Alex Jones have done. People are agenda driven and unwilling to listen to anything besides what proves their point.