Ron Paul Sucked in the Florida Debate

Comments 13

  1. Stuff wrote:

    So, who would you recommend as the next runner up?

    Posted 27 Jan 2008 at 9:16 pm
  2. Funky Dung wrote:

    Mickey Mouse, maybe? Seriously, as long as RP is running, he’ll have my vote. If he drops out, I’ll either vote for a nobody (Libertarian, Constitutionalist, Green, etc) or not vote at all.

    Posted 27 Jan 2008 at 9:21 pm
  3. Tom Smith wrote:

    “…or not vote at all.”

    Mad props, homie. People get all over me when I say I’d rather not vote than vote for a crappy candidate. Seriously though, the lesser of two (or three, or four…) evils is still an evil.

    Posted 28 Jan 2008 at 8:29 pm
  4. gbm3 wrote:

    About other candidates:

    In the R. primary, being realistic, Sen. McCain (rosebud?) will prob. win. If he does, I’d rather have him win than Sen. Clinton or Sen. da Bomb. Sorry to say, voting third party will not send a message, it will send scary scary liberal judges to the top bench and abortion doctors in every city. (We have enough in MD as it is.)

    Yes, I am spouting recent R. propaganda, but at this point reality must set in.

    I’m ready for the back lash from FD et al. (closing my eyes , grimmicing for the hit).

    gbm3

    Posted 08 Feb 2008 at 2:40 pm
  5. Funky Dung wrote:

    I’ve rethought my earlier comment about voting for Mickey Mouse. In 2000 I voted for Nader. In 2004 I voted for Peroutka. Both votes were to protest the corrupt two-party system. Looking back on the 8 years of evil that Bush, et al., have wrought, I must confess some regret (Try not to hurt yourself gloating, John). My ignorance of Bush’s true nature in 2000 makes my belief that he and Gore sucked about equally at least a defendable position. Also, I could not have foreseen 9/11 and how it would be abused to launch pre-emptive wars and infringe on civil rights. My choice in 2004 is less defendable, for obvious reasons.

    So, here I am in 2008. The candidate I backed isn’t going to win. He may not even speak at the national convention. What should I do? Well, I can’t in good conscience vote for trigger happy McInsane. You couldn’t pay me to. He plays lip service to life and family issues, at best, and he’s a warmongering neocon. Hell will freeze before I vote for that psycho.

    If in November it’s Hillary vs. McCain, I really do think they’re just about interchangeable. I will vote for neither. Between Obama vs. McCain, I’d probably hold my nose and pull the lever for Obamalamadingdong. He can’t possibly suck as badly as Hillary or McCain. In the unlikely event of Obama vs. Huckabee, I’d vote Obama. With Hillary vs. Huckabee, I might just hold my nose for Huckleberry.

    Let me repeat, Gerry, there is NO F***ING WAY I will vote for the murder-happy, central bankmongering police statist McCain. A vote for him is a vote for WWIII.

    Posted 09 Feb 2008 at 10:01 am
  6. Jerry wrote:

    Gbm3, I understand your points, and have voted for Bush with that logic. However, the conservatives have proven to be their own worst enemy, and McCain seems raring to go after Iran and kick up a few more hornet’s nests while we’re still struggling to handle what Bush started.

    I will not vote for a pro-choice presidential candidate, but neither will I vote for anyone who claims to be pro-life without question. McCain was little more conservative than Romney on the life issue, and he is an embryonic research supporter. Since much of his popularity seems to stem from his willingness to thumb his nose at conservatives, I think Romney would be a better pro-life candidate–at least Romney might have stayed “bought”, since he specifically reached out to religious Christians in his campaign.

    Voting uncritically for any Republican who claims to be pro-life could undermine the cause, much like uncritical support for “civil rights” has allowed politicians like Sharpton or Jackson to beat us over the head with MLK Jr. whenever their behavior has been called into question. Neither the pro-life nor the civil rights movements are identical with a particular candidate or party, and ignoring that has been damaging to both. (Note to pro-lifers: I consider supporting Feminists for Life and the pregnancy care centers in times like this particularly important, since they help establish a culture of life that does not depend on voting trends and whether one party or another is making a particular fool of itself.)

    A good loss would probably do wonders for the GOP–perhaps it would allow Republicans to question Bush’s policies without being shouted down, and would allow some of the new blood that the Paul campaign brought in to come into their own. This wouldn’t be the first time that it had to get worse before it got better.

    Posted 09 Feb 2008 at 3:31 pm
  7. gbm3 wrote:

    Well, I can’t in good conscience vote for trigger happy McInsane. You couldn’t pay me to. He plays lip service to life and family issues, at best, and he’s a warmongering neocon. Hell will freeze before I vote for that psycho.

    Let me repeat, Gerry, there is NO F***ING WAY I will vote for the murder-happy, central bankmongering police statist McCain. A vote for him is a vote for WWIII. -FD

    FD, I respect your position, but there is no need for the f’ing.

    I agree with most of your points, but I don’t think he’s trigger “happy”. He has defended the professional military’s judgment and has talked about victory in Iraq, but I do not believe he wants to charge into another country (I heard somewhere (sorry no link) that he’s willing to work with the UN regarding Iran as the UN is also not happy about the situation). He wants to clean up past messes to the best of his (and his advisers’) ability.

    As far as lip service to life issues, the vote that everyone is talking about (ESCR) was a terrible decision, but it’s better to the dozens of votes and sponsored bills (ex: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-1173 ) that the Dem candidates accepted (etc.).

    As far letting the R. party loose, it will probably send a message that Bush Jr. did a terrible job and that the R. party must rethink its position (towards Dr. Paul’s platform), but, in my humble, imperfect position, getting more Constitutionalists on the bench is more important to me (the sinner I am, and all them those ye polo shirter politico persons).

    gbm3

    Posted 16 Feb 2008 at 3:20 pm
  8. gbm3 wrote:

    One more thing.

    Obviously, I’m a one issue voter on abortion. There are two main points to this stance: 1. it’s a numbers game, hundreds of thousands die in abortion each year ( http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5511a1.htm ), while in the Iraq war, less than 5000 ( http://icasualties.org/oif/Cumulative.aspx ) have died (I assume pre-birthed human persons are equal in value to born adults). 2. The only way to change the laws is a. amend the constitution to i. include the Declaration of independence defining “life” as all human life from conception to natural death and/or ii. define human personal life from natural conception to death or b. overturn Roe et al. from the supreme court. In order to change 2a-b, one must elect as pro-life a candidate as possible; directly relating to the president, I must vote for the candidate more likely to appoint a pro-life judge; in this election, McCain most likely will, in my judgment.

    Furthermore, I do not believe McCain himself and his cronies will push us into WWIII (see above comment); it’s a judgment call with which FD et al. obviously disagree.

    Please provide more information, if you would, to demonstrate that McCain will start WWIII. I would like to see it. (I can’t really prove he won’t (in the negative).)

    gbm3

    Posted 16 Feb 2008 at 6:30 pm
  9. Jerry wrote:

    GBM: McCain still refers to old Vietnam captors as “gooks”. He speaks lightly of sending our children to Iraq as he says he’s fine with a 100 years of Iraqi occupation, citing our continuing occupations of South Korea and Germany, never mind that Koreans and Germans don’t have memories of Crusades and a religion that often defines itself by those old wars. (Never mind that those occupations have lived past their useful lifetimes some time ago.)

    I don’t know about WWIII or anything, but I see a loose cannon who is quite comfortable with fighting and endless military actions and racial slurs (consider that Vietnam is a friend and possible counterweight to Chinese influence in Southeast Asia–do we need this embarassment in the Senate, let alone the White House?). We need someone with a calmer head, who actually learned the right lessons from Vietnam.

    I reiterate that the prolife movement must be willing to discipline its own, and not just give a blank check to anyone who happens to fill out the right responses to those questionnaires that the NRLC sends out to see what candidates think on an issue. And heck, McCain wanted to expand embryonic reserach, and was pretty prochoice on the whole until he wanted be president in 2000. Will you really get any more favorable numbers from this guy, who may well expand the war on those who are unborn and those born alike? Do you like the idea that he’s promising our children’s and grandchildren’s lives to occupy a country that doesn’t want us there? Heck, he won’t be alive then, let alone a presidency, so why is he making promises for an endless occupation?

    An Obama or Clinton presidency doesn’t sound fun, but a McCain presidency threatens to link prolifers even further with a war machine that nobody outside of the GOP’s inner circle likes. I don’t want that albatross around our neck–oh sure, not every pro-lifer is conservative or a Republican, but we are stereotyped that way, like it or not, and Bush’s policies are not making it any easier to fight that. Nor is meekly voting for any Republican who claims to be pro-life (whilst wanting to break up embryos for research) despite being a trainwreck on every other front.

    I know we sometimes must compromise, but ultimately we must remember that the Gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church, but that no similar promise was ever made about a government. The Republicans are not the last final hope for the unborn or those who are born. I do not lightly abandon a pro-life candidate (I reluctantly voted for Bush in 2004), but McCain’s pro-life credentials are dubious, and he is doing enough to discredit and harm our country that I think he is a poor friend to have. I won’t vote for a pro-choicer, but I won’t vote for him.

    I will also continue to support Fems for Life, Birthright, CareNet and the groups that are changing the culture itself by changing hearts of individual people. A republic gets the elected officials that it deserves, so we should work to help build our culture and maybe get a better crop politicians than sorry lot we’re stuck with right now. Worrying about elections to the exclusion of everything else is like slapping a bandaid on a gunshot wound. The issues go deeper than that. Rome did not become Christian because Constantine converted, Constantine converted because Rome became Christian. Let’s look at our current issues through that lens.

    Posted 17 Feb 2008 at 3:43 pm
  10. gbm3 wrote:

    Jerry, thank you for your points. The debate we’re having reminds me of the interview I heard of SUSAN JACOBY with Bill Moyers ( http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/02152008/transcript2.html ). She is a whaky one, but one point she was saying was that we should listen to people who do not have our opinion so that we may learn from each other. She had said that only those who agreed with her attended her talks.

    BILL MOYERS: Yeah, why is it we’re so unwilling to give, as you say, a hearing to contradictory viewpoints? Or to imagine that we might learn something from someone who disagrees with us?

    (Please see interview around the above quote. I won’t copy it here.)

    I won’t vote for a pro-choicer, but I won’t vote for him. -Jerry

    If I may, who will you vote for? I assume not Obama or Clinton. (?)

    Could you address my concerns about the judges? I here you on the foreign issue BIG problems. I’m trying to figure out if they’re more important than the SC appointments; I believe there will be at least one.

    Please understand that I am willing to change my mind. I just haven’t been convinced yet. Maybe ya’ll had enough with this, understandably. I just ask that you respect my way in this. (in the end, His will be done!)

    gbm3
    (Please note my new blog (Started) at http://wonderingzygoteemeritus.blogspot.com/ .)

    Posted 18 Feb 2008 at 10:24 am
  11. gbm3 wrote:

    I here (sic) you…

    Sorry (I was being rushed off the computer): I hear you…

    g

    Posted 18 Feb 2008 at 11:21 am
  12. Jerry wrote:

    Re. who to vote for, I’ll write in Paul, or depending on what’s going on with the Libertarians, I’ll vote for that person.

    Regarding judges, they are a notoriously flaky bunch–Kennedy, you’ll recall, played up his pro-life credentials as a conservative judge only to go 180 degrees in the other direction in the Casey decision. McCain’s pro-life credentials are dubious, and he can score quick points as a “centrist” Republican who is not afraid of fundamentalism by appointing pro-choice or mildly pro-choice justices to the Supreme Court. He can avoid a lot of bickering with the Democratic majority that way as well, and stick to more important issues like waterboarding terrorists and bombing Iran (I don’t see the Dems losing their majority too soon, though Reid and Pelosi are doing their best in that regard).

    In politics we should remember a line from Uncle Screwtape to the effect that the devil would rather not have us gain the world in return for our soul, but rather sell our soul for nothing. I see voting for McCain as an embarassment for a cause that has already suffered too many at the hands of Bush/Cheney. Given that McCain is not nearly as pro-life as he has presented, we may not stand to get what little we did from Bush.

    Again, we need to changing hearts and minds first and foremost; judges (thank God) cannot change the culture on their own, and we should not be sacrificing our integrity to back a candidate who stands to cause serious damage to our cause and numerous other issues here and abroad.

    Posted 19 Feb 2008 at 8:19 am
  13. gbm3 wrote:

    Jerry, thanks for your comments.
    gbm3
    http://wonderingzygoteemeritus.blogspot.com/

    Posted 23 Feb 2008 at 11:03 pm

Trackbacks & Pingbacks 1

  1. From The State of the Ron Paul Campaign @ Ales Rarus on 28 Jan 2008 at 10:47 pm

    […] as though he were responding to my recent YouTube post, Ron Paul posted a video and an article updating his supporters on the state of the campaign. He […]

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *