Saturday, January 21, 2012

Nominate Ron Paul or reelect Obama


Mike Shaner
January 21, 2012

If the GOP is serious about defeating Obama in the 2012 Presidential race they better swallow the establishment pride and nominate Ron Paul.  Those of us in the liberty movement have been told for years that we must hold our nose and vote for "the lesser of two evils." The ball is now in our court. Libertarians hold the key to the 2012 election.

We have eclipsed the magical 10% number that either party must have to win an election, and we will not compromise. We will not replace one big government statist wearing a blue uniform for another wearing a red uniform. If Ron Paul is not the nominee we will write him in or vote for a Libertarian party candidate. We will not vote for Mitt Romney. We will not vote for Newt. I would rather take a beating than vote for Santorum. He is evil Abe incarnate.

Without the Ron Paul supporters the GOP has absolutely no path to victory. The Republican establishment has been screaming for years "we must nominate the most electable candidate." Let's see if they put their money where there mouth is. This year it is Ron Paul or not at all. The choice is yours: Waste your vote on a big government establishment GOP clone of Obama or vote for liberty. Have the courage of your convictions and vote for the Constitution you claim to care about or continue to ignore it. Champion the limited government principle's in the GOP platform or continue on your corporatist path of destruction. Endorse socialized medicine, socialized education, endless war, the patriot act, assassination and indefinite detention of American citizens or allow peaceful liberty to restore our Republic. You can nominate Ron Paul or waste your vote on another candidate and re-elect President Obama.

136 comments:

  1. Jennifer Wise ( LION Networker 3200+ Connects!) • Jennifer Wise ( LION Networker 3200+ Connects!) • I like that Ron Paul has captured the minds of some young people. Unfortuntely many of the young people are naive and uninformed ( See JFK, Eugene McCarthy, Obama and others).

    I like that he gets them involved in this process... but they do not have enough experience and few of them know enough history to know the real facts.

    That said.... I like that Ron Paul brings up the Constituion and the Fed and many more things.

    He is not the Messenger and after 30 years in the House he cannot get the House to follow him. He is not true leader material.

    A REAL leader needs to cross divides and bring people together and work together. He is quite divisive and has a silly laugh. He is too old at the age of 74....

    I still believe Ron Paul is paving the way for son Rand who I think could have a real chance to be President.

    Ron Paul should work on reforming the GOP and not trying to be President. I like his voice being out there though but I give his ability to be President in 2012 or ever to be less than 20% and that is not a winner.

    Ron Paul supporters need to face the facts and get behind the nominee and help reform the GOP... the Party of Abraham Lincoln and freedom, liberty and capitalism. The Party of Personal Responsbility and not blaming everyone else.


    The answer is in YOURSELF.. not in following some leader... Ron Paul is not the Messiah so don't make him that. They are just men in this given point of time. It is WE the voters and WE the People who are the important ones. These candidates come and go but we are the Power.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You say he isn't a leader among his peers in the house and I agree. You can't be a leader of the corrupt unless you yourself are corrupt. If ever there was a "Messiah", he would be it. You neeed to get on board or go vote Obama because m and all the other liberty minded patriots are going to write paul in and destroy any chance of trading for a GOP idiot. I don't care. We may as well keep obama if Paul doesn't make it! They do the same shit. Ron Paul 2012 or fuck the world.

      Delete
    2. I find it humorous that you, in the same paragraph, chide young voters for "not knowing enough history" and then prove your own lack of knowledge by citing Abraham Lincoln as an advocate of "freedom, liberty and capitalism." Is this the same Abe Lincoln who closed down 300 Northern newspapers and jailed their owners for printing editorials critical of him? Is this the same Abe Lincoln who deported Clement Vallandigham, and Ohio congressman, for questioning his authority on the floor of the House? The same Abe Lincoln who unilaterally and unconstitutionally suspended habeas corpus and then swore out an arrest warrant for the chief Justic of the Supreme Court for informing him that he didn't have the authority to do so? The same Lincoln who defied the international rules of war by blockading Southern Ports and firebombing Southern cities with no military targets? The same Lincoln who proposed to make the Corwin Amendment, which would have guaranteed slavery forever, "express and irrevocable" in his first inaugural address? the same Lincoln who said that he had" no purpose to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists" but that there would be "bloodshed and invasion" in order to collect his tariff? the same Lincoln who waged war against the states (the constitution defines this as "treason"), killing over 600,000 people in order to collect that same tariff? The same Lincoln who gave the seceded States 4 months to re-enter the union and keep their slaves in which case the "emancipation proclamation" would then not apply to them and their slaves? The same Lincoln who until his dieing day was trying to devise a way to "colonize" all blacks, slave and freedman alike, in other countries such as Liberia? The same Lincoln who was a paid lobbyist for the railroads? the same Lincoln who as an attorney in illinois fought to keep the State law which prevented blacks from even entering that state? I can keep going on, and on, but I think this should be enough to illustrate my point. i'm reminded of a saying about those who live in glass houses...........

      Delete
    3. well I'm not sure how much history you know if you think the GOP of Lincoln was the party of freedom,liberty and capitalism.

      Delete
  2. Beverly Farrar • If RP was capturing the minds and hearts of the majority of the American people then he could be considered. However, it is not the case. His economic ideas are agreeable with most. RP's foreign policy would not work for most Americans. America has to be in a position of strength to survive in this world.

    Hopefully, the RP fans will soon rally around a candidate that can win the contest against the current leader and turn all around unless they want 4 more years of the same.

    ReplyDelete
  3. RP's foreign policy is popular with everyone but the establishment neocons. The majority of the country wants to bring the troops home. He dominates the polls when it comes to independents and moderates. He gets more in donations from military than all other candidates combined. His foreign policy is the sameone that elected Reagan, W., Clinton, and Obama...The difference is he'll stick to it. He is the only candidate who can actually steal voters from Obama's anti/war and youth base. Further more no Republican win without his supporters and we will not support another statist. If you don't nominate Ron Paul you are guaranteeing a 2nd Obama term. We will not vote for a neocon who has the same positions as Obama/Bush

    ReplyDelete
  4. RP's foreign policy is popular with everyone but the establishment neocons. The majority of the country wants to bring the troops home. He dominates the polls when it comes to independents and moderates. He gets more in donations from military than all other candidates combined. His foreign policy is the sameone that elected Reagan, W., Clinton, and Obama...The difference is he'll stick to it. He is the only candidate who can actually steal voters from Obama's anti/war and youth base. Further more no Republican win without his supporters and we will not support another statist. If you don't nominate Ron Paul you are guaranteeing a 2nd Obama term. We will not vote for a neocon who has the same positions as Obama/Bush

    ReplyDelete
  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Mike are you saying that if Ron Paul does not get the nomination, you will vote for the current leader?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Did you guys read the article? No I will not vote for Obama and I will not vote for his Republican twin either. If RP doesn't get the nomination I will write him in or vote Libertarian as will the 15-20% of registered liberty minded Republicans who are die hard supporters. The Republicans can't win without that support and we will not support another big government statist be it freom the ass's or the elephants. The GOP will nominate the constitutionalist or they will lose.

      Delete
    2. Mike, I am sad that you would put your favorite candidate for whatever reason ahead of unseating the current leader. It's really counter productive. Of course, that is your choice. As for me if RP gets the nomination, I will be most happy to vote for him.

      Possibly you don't have children, so this election may not have as much meaning as it does for those who have children and/or grandchildren.

      You certainly have a right to your opinion as do the rest of us. However, that would seem like a willingness to cut off the nose to spite the face. All that accomplishes is owning a face without a nose.

      BTW, blackmail will not work with clear thinking folks.

      Delete
  7. Morris Gosa, LC • Interesting Mike! Are you plowing new ground?
    Barry Goldwater, 48 years ago said “I would rather be right then elected.” So we got Lyndon Johnson and the Great Society which is bankrupting us right now.
    Again in 1976, Reagan supporters would not support Ford so we got “Jimmy Carter” and 20% inflation, and the takeover of our Iranian embassy.
    Again in 1992, Pat Robertson would not support Bush Sr. and we got Bill Clinton and the directive to the banking industry to give mortgages to people who should not get it and we got the recession we are in now.
    Again in 2008, McCain got no support so we got Obama and trillions more in debt and NDAA.
    Are we really better off for the last 48 years because the republican right would rather be “Right then elected?” So much for your “Relationship building.”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Beverly Farrar • Thanks for the comment Morris and the factual history lesson that we all need to hear over and over and over.

      Delete
    2. Morris: Suggesting that we wouldn't have gotten NDAA with McCain is kind of a joke since he sponsored the bill. Also Let's see what happened by voting in Bush: We got no child left behind, TARP, No Child left behind. Bush Sr. raised taxes and pushed us further into the NWO. Furthermore...I would have voted for an imperfect Candidate ala Jim Demint but there is no difference between Obama and Newt Romney. They all supported the bailouts, Tarp, NDAA, Patriot act, aggressive wars, etc... However if you truly believe that the only goal should be to unseat Obama...just coalesque behind the one man who can do it: Ron Paul

      Delete
    3. Also...let's say the reagan followers had of sold out in '76 and elected Ford. We would have never had Reagan in 80. Ford would have been better than carter but four years of Carter was worht 8 years of Reagan. Also If Bush Sr. had not been such a globalist or if we had of stayed firm in 88 and nominated a better candidate we wouldn't have had Clinton. Bush Jr. Nearly destroyed the name of conservatism by pretending to be one and then passing all of his big government initiatives. The left still claims it was Bush era "Deregulation" that led to the economy collapse when in fact Bush was no conservative he bailed out wall street and nationalized Freddie and Fannie, as well as the education system and initiated the Patriot act and led us into Iraq. It was over regulation that led to the collapse and leftist policies...but bc we had a fake conservative in office people abandoned conservatism and elected Obama. If we had of elected McCain we'd be in even worse shape today bc he would have led us into even more war and the Republican house wouldn't have stalled all of his big government measures the way they have Obama. I get the feeling that if Obama were the Republican nominee some of you would support him just so a Republican would win. In fact I know you would because you are willing to because you are willing to support Newt or Romney

      Delete
    4. Well Mike, if McCain had been in the white house there would have been no need for an NDAA because something better would have been passed as far as the Defense budget goes instead of the draconian measures of the bill. I don’t remember bringing up Bush Jr. and No Child left behind? And you are saying that in 1988 Michael Dukakis would have been better than Bush Sr.?
      If we got Ford in 1976, we would still have had Reagan in 1980 because of the 22nd amendment limiting Ford from re-election.
      After 1994, Gingrich got the balanced budget. Paul has passed nothing and shown no leadership capabilities. He is as you imply, I will hold you hostage to my (Paul) wants.
      What you and the rest of the Paulite Nation leave out is what these presidents do when they appoint judges. Carter, Clinton, & Obama judges will be around for the next generation. They have nothing you want. And from what you implied Dukakis and Gore would have been better!
      C’mon Man! Paul gets 1 in 8 of the republican party at best. I am sorry. You can rationalize all you want but Paul is not the avenue of salvation for our country. There is more to life than isolationism and legalized drugs.

      Delete
    5. Morris: I will start with the end of your rant: Ron Paul is not an isolationist he is a non interventionist. You should know the difference. In the 2nd place he would have no power to legalize drugs...that is a state issue. He doesn't want to "legalize" drugs...just get the federal government out of it. I know you didn't bring up no child left behind...I did.

      I didn't say we should have elected Dukakis...I said if the RP had nominated a real conservative that year we wouldn't have had Clinton. Bush Sr. was so bad that it allowed for clinton.

      Reagan wouldn't have got the nomination in 80 bc Ford had also soiled the name of conservatism and luckily we had carter to come in and soil the democrat name. Otherwise we would have gotten Carter in 80. instead of 76.

      Because Paul has passed nothing is exactly why I want him...I want A Limited Federal government not one that always does stuff for me. Paul has shown true leadership by having the guts to stick to his principle's despite ridicule. To never change a vote even though it hurt his career. To me that is the mark of a true leader. As far as saying he only get's 1/8th of the GOP vote...obviously you haven't been watching the primaries. More important is the fact that he garners the overwhelming support of the young voters who are the future for any party. There may be more to life than non-interventionism and abandoning Federal drug laws but there should not be more to the Federal Government than the Constitution allows

      Delete
    6. Isolationist, non-interventionist- 6 of 1, half a dozen of the other. I am not here to split those hairs. During the 70’s as a libertarian Paul carried the cause of that era- my youth. I had, and still have libertarian leanings. As Jefferson said 2 centuries ago, “Government that governs lest, governs best.” But when he got into office he proceeded to violate the constitution by buying the Louisiana territory which he considered unconstitutional. But he had the power, and he did it. So much for his strict ideology- Theory and reality rarely meet. I would agree that he did the right thing.
      The only reason we got Carter was because of Watergate. Evan Carter admits that Ford brought dignity back to the white house.
      One of my biggest complaints about the right- that would rather be right- is that they allow the opposition the ability to put their judges in office for life- as you say, what the federal constitution allows.
      Yes, Paul has gotten more than 1 in 8 in 2 primaries. 13% in South Carolina is 1 in 8. The polls still show him at 13 to 15% nationwide.
      People, generally do not like negative leadership. Because he cannot create positive leadership- getting government programs passed or deleted - he cannot get the votes he needs to be a positive force for the future of the country. He will- and should- pull the party to the right but a negative message will get us nothing but Obama.

      Delete
  8. Question: What cuts in spending does Newt Gingrich propose? Answer: None- he proposes only cuts in the rate of growth. His proposal to extend the Bush era tax cuts, and offer an optional 15% flat tax, are both a red herring because the Federal Reserve will remain intact. The fed will, as it has since 1913, print the money necessary to account for the deficit between taxes and actual spending. This will serve as a hidden tax as the dollar, and your buying power, continues to decline. Borrowing will also continue. It has to if Newt's plan of a "cut in the rate of growth" (which is noit a "cut" at all in actual spending) is put into place.

    Newt proposes to "make the fed more transparent.' Government transparency- assuming (against all evidence to the contrary) that this is not a mutually exclusive proposition, it still does not answer the real issue- which is the creation of money that is backed by nothing of value. Newt's proposal assumes that a central bank is necessary to a sound economy. It isn't. In fact, it is a detriment to a sound economy as has been proven time after time, including here in the States with the First and Second Banks of the US.

    A central bank IS necessary- it is necessary to a government that desires to spend, spend, spend above and beyond the rate of tax revenue. It operates under the radar of the American people who seemingly have yet to realize that inflation is a hidden form of taxation. Gingrich and Romney both would prefer that we did not understand this. But the fact is that the increase in the price of fuel for your car, the price of groceries, and the price of gold and silver are all indicative of a declining dollar- Gingrich proposes to continue this same policy of hidden taxation ro fund increased government spending.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I get the feeling that if Obama were the Republican nominee some of you would support him just so a Republican would win. In fact I know you would because you are willing to because you are willing to support Newt or Romney

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Beverly Farrar • That statement just shows how very little you know.

      Delete
    2. Ok Beverly let's discuss it issue by issue. What legislation has Obama signed that you are most disappointed in?

      Delete
    3. Beverly Farrar • That's an easy one Mike, everything he has signed other than a real tax cut. However, every time there has been a tax cut there is no real spending cut.

      Your turn. What has O done that you are most disappointed in?

      Delete
    4. "everything he's done" isn't an answer. I want to go one by one so we can differentiate between him and the current candidates. I'll start though...NDAA, which Newt and Romney support, an extension of the patriot act, which they support, Obama-care- which Romney wrote but suddenly claims not to support and which Newt has always supported but suddenly claims not to. Raising the debt limit which both candidates said they would do. Going into Libya which they both support. So far I haven't found anything that I dislike about Obama that I don't also dislike about Newt Romney

      Delete
    5. "everything he's done" isn't an answer. I want to go one by one so we can differentiate between him and the current candidates. I'll start though...NDAA, which Newt and Romney support, an extension of the patriot act, which they support, Obama-care- which Romney wrote but suddenly claims not to support and which Newt has always supported but suddenly claims not to. Raising the debt limit which both candidates said they would do. Going into Libya which they both support. So far I haven't found anything that I dislike about Obama that I don't also dislike about Newt Romney

      Delete
    6. did take a turn. I listed several problems with Obama and how newt romney supports every one of them. Did you only read the first line of my response?As far as him not passing any bills: That's exactly what I want...A candidate who has NOT expanded government. Every bill they have passed should be viewed as a scarlett letter...some of you view it as a badge of honor.. He will not be king but he will have the power to veto every unbalanced budget, every spending increase, every tax increase, and every unconstitutional bill that comes across his desk. In 30 years Dr. Paul has NEVER voted for a tax increase, a spending increase, or an unconstitutional bill. Sure he could have sold out the American people and voted to raise taxes and spending and gotten a few bills passed...but why? I am so proud that Dr. Paul has never sponsored a global warming bill like Newt or wrote a takeover of healthcare like Romney. What he wants to accomplish is shrinking the size and scope of government. He is not trying to get the government to "do things for us" he wants them to leave us alone. I am much more bothered by what Newt, Obama, and Romney HAVE accomplished!

      Delete
    7. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    8. Beverly Farrar • What you have described is that you want a government that is in total gridlock...nothing more or less. The next leader of this country has to have the ability to work with many of the same folks that he cannot work with now to untangle this mess that we find ourselves in at this time. Passing more bills is not necessarily leadership, but neither is just saying no. Obviously, that is a foreign concept to RP and his followers.

      That's no way to lead and it is not what many of us want. It's clear that we already have a government that is not working because of this behavior.

      I have a bulletin for you guys. This election is about more than one man, it's about our country.

      It would be my opinion that it would be beneficial to get off of the Ron Paul perch of perfection and come on down here with the rest of the common folk.

      Delete
    9. There are only 2 short answers that I would like to have from you if you have one.

      Please answer what I have asked here without the rant. We've heard all of that 1,000 times. Overwhelming with the long rants don't work.

      What about the 30 years with no accomplishments. He's never authored and passed but one bill? Proposing absolutely nothing good or bad that is passable is not governing. We already know what he hasn't done, but why did he not have more influence than this for 30 years. You haven't answered that question.

      .What about an answer to this question.
      America could probably best use RP as Treasury Secretary, Federal Reserve Chairman or Office of Budget and Management. He should really like working on the economy. What do you think of that notion? Wouldn't he then be best able make a big difference in the monetary system.

      These are the statements that I would like you to answer that have not been answered.

      Delete
    10. As far as him not passing any bills: That's exactly what I want...A candidate who has NOT expanded government. Every bill they have passed should be viewed as a scarlett letter...some of you view it as a badge of honor.. He will not be king but he will have the power to veto every unbalanced budget, every spending increase, every tax increase, and every unconstitutional bill that comes across his desk. In 30 years Dr. Paul has NEVER voted for a tax increase, a spending increase, or an unconstitutional bill. Sure he could have sold out the American people and voted to raise taxes and spending and gotten a few bills passed...but why? I am so proud that Dr. Paul has never sponsored a global warming bill like Newt or wrote a takeover of healthcare like Romney. What he wants to accomplish is shrinking the size and scope of government. He is not trying to get the government to "do things for us" he wants them to leave us alone. I am much more bothered by what Newt, Obama, and Romney HAVE accomplished!

      In regards to him being chairman of the Fed or whatever: That would be fine if we had a decent President but the Fact is He is the only candidate running who will not continue the big government agenda of Bush/Obama....

      Beverly our Government isn't dysfunctional because it can't get things done. It is dysfunctional because it passes TOO MANY BILLS. They keep blowing up countries and stealing liberty and raising the debt ceiling. This election is about more than one man or one party. Why would I vote for Newt or Romney when they support all the things I hate about Obama? How is that going to change anything? I don't need perfection but at least give me good...or even Ok. I'd recommend that you strive for better than the status quo...We can argue til the cows come home but the fact is us liberty supporters will not vote for more big government and you cannot win the general without us. If you want to defeat Obama you better start encouraging people to nominate RP bc his support is solid and loyal. We will write him in or vote for the Libertarian party candidate but we will not vote for Newt, Romney, or Santorum under any circumstances. The future of this country and the future of conservatism is far too important than to turn it over to a Republican version of Obama. If you like the policies of Newt and Romney...just leave Obama in office bc they are the same. I offered to go over this issue by issue but you refused

      Delete
    11. If you consider the 3 paragraphs above a long rant I apologize. Now I have answered your questions...would you be interested in answering mine now?

      Delete
    12. Beverly Farrar • Thanks for your response. However, my questions only needed about 2 sentences per question. Otherwise, it's that same old rant we see on almost all the sites. It does not work and it is really irritating. .

      The hospital will be calling in the morning early...must go help some folks.

      When you guys can learn to give concise, to the point answers without all the slamming of everyone else, the reading of scriptures, and the long drawn out rants it will be a better approach.

      It would also be my counsel that you take a different approach with the threat of your candidate and his followers doing a write in because you do not get your way. It's somewhat childish and really turns a self assured person completely off to your cause.

      Good night and good luck

      Delete
    13. What will make a good President is not how much he "get's done" but how little he allows them to do to us.

      Delete
    14. Beverly Farrar • Ridiculous! Have a good night

      Delete
    15. Nothing ridiculous about it but you have a good night too

      Delete
    16. Daniel Duckworth • "Beverly our Government isn't dysfunctional because it can't get things done. It is dysfunctional because it passes TOO MANY BILLS"

      It hasn't been for a lack of trying. 600 bills authored and one passed. I'm amused we're impressed by his history of failure. "That's exactly what I want...A candidate who has NOT expanded government". Thar's what you've got. A guy that can't get things done.

      Delete
    17. Beverly Farrar • Daniel you made my point better than I did and I thank you. Have you seen this article. This is another reason we have to think about legalization of drugs.

      http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2011/03/marijuana_psychotic_pot_study.php

      Delete
  10. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  11. The bills he sponsored were symbolic like repealing NDAA just after it passed. Yes he could have sold out and passed a lot of bills like NDAA, Romney care, the 431 newt sponsored with pelosi...but to me the mark of a true leader is one who does what's right even when it would be far easier, less lonely, and politically advantageous to do the opposite. As I said I want a President who will veto every unconstitutional bill congress sends him. Only Ron Paul will do that. No one seems to be willing to answer my questions but I'll try one more: Does the Constitution matter? Should the federal government have to obey it or not....and finally one more time what specific legislation had Obama signed that you (any of you) find so distasteful? Please list 3 if possible.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is a pretty good article about how the Constitution was changed from bieng for the people, to a constitution of the corporation, making the citizens assets of the corporation.

      http://www.serendipity.li/jsmill/us_corporation.htm

      Delete
    2. Beverly Farrar • Mike Shaner, why bother to list three specific transactions that have been signed by O. We all know he always signs for ideology rather than for the good of the American people.

      My question would be what is the good of taking a symbolic position, everyone knows it's just symbolic while never accomplishing anything that really matters. That legacy would be described as "but he tried". We need to find a candidate that is committed and can achieve the legacy "we accomplished" the goals of the silent majority. I would have much preferred, as noble as RP's actions were that he had enough influence to gather a coalition to help him with his noble stances. Then we would possibly not be in the hot water we are today. Have you ever heard the saying "too little, too late"?

      Again, we all believe that we absolutely have to get back to the constitution and move away from the ideology of O (well known already).

      I for one, will be considering the candidate that, in my opinion, can win the general election and will have the ability to influence the rest of the legislators. The ability to influence the rest is the only real way to accomplish what this country needs to accomplish in order to remain the GREATEST country in the world. period.

      If RP has the ability to influence American to nominate him as the GOP candidate of choice, I will gladly vote for him.

      Delete
    3. The reason I ask you to list the 3 pieces of legislation you disagree with most is because I would then be able to point out that both NEWT and Romney AGREED w Obama on whatever those 3 issues were. What is the point of replacing one bad person with another?

      You seem to be under the delusion that Government needs to do things to help us when really they need to get out of the way. RP is the only candidate that would never raise the debt limit and would veto every unconstitutional bill. I don't want someone who sells out his principles just to pass bills. (expand the government) Yes RP could have done as Rick Santorum has done and voted against Right to work laws or to fund planned parenthood just to build a coalition and later pass more government expanding bills....because he doesn't do such things i exactly why I want him.

      Ron Paul would have veto'd NDAA- Santorum, Gingrich, and Newt would have signed it. Same for raising the debt ceiling, same for every other intrusive measure they send to the oval office. Gingrich and Romney both supported an individual mandate....RP would have veto'd it. RP would appoint judges who abide by the constitution- the rest would have appointed judges based on ideology as opposed to the Constitution. If yu are so adamant that Obama needs to be replaced why would you want to replace him with someone who holds the exact same positions? Simply because they passed a bunch of bills that have driven us further into a hole and away from the Constitution?

      Delete
    4. The good of taking a symbolic position is to get your vote and the vote of your opponents on the record. I am far more interested in how they voted on the bills than I am impressed that they were able to ram intrusive bills down our throat.

      Delete
    5. Beverly Farrar • Mike, We know what the views are for all 4, at times too much repitition of the same non-effective argument of views. Surprisingly, we can all read the articles on the internet and look at the actual voting records and see what they have each accomplished in their life times of service and/or business, etc. Furthermore, it is clear that I am not going to be swayed by you and the reverse is true. As I say, why bother?

      I just want to discuss who can WIN the general election and nothing more. Everything else is a moot point.

      Delete
  12. So Mike. Plan A is obviously to get Ron Paul the nomination. What is Plan B if that doesn't work out? In other words, what is the plan to advance the cause for constitutional adherence if and when that fateful day comes when Ron Paul has to bow out. what comes next?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Plan A is actually to work at the local level: that is the only place true change can be had. If we elect local/state representatives that will hold the fed to the constitution by nullifying unconstitutional laws it matters little who is President...but if we continue to vote for whatever big government statist the establishment gives us...we will continue to get big government statist. If 10% of the people vote for liberty the establishment will have to start supporting liberty candidates and only then will we have a true two party system. Right now we have one big government party

      Delete
    2. Daniel Duckworth • Mike. I agree with you on that 100%. The 17th Amendments shifted the party emphasis from local to national and now elections are controlled and decided by the large national factions. The 16th Amendment then gave the federal government the power to divide the populace. so the states and the individuals have been neutered. Enough people are beginning to wake up and realize this. Of course there is a whole other faction out there that wants complete popular vote and they do not realize how much worse that will make the problem.

      Delete
    3. Beverly Farrar • You are so right Daniel. Sanity at last.

      Delete
    4. Beverly: I am not trying to change your mind I'm just having a debate. In the end you should vote your conscience. I'm still curious what criteria you would use to pick one candidate over another. For instance what do you like about Romney that you dislike about Obama...why would you choose one over another?

      Delete
    5. In fact i'm open to having my mind changed if I can get a good reason...policy difference etc.. To me "well he's a republican" is simply not a good reason. Like I said I would have voted for a less than perfect nominee like Jim Demint had he chose to run but I will not reward the GOP with my vote for nominating a big government Corporatist just because. The other candidates have the exact same agenda as the current President so what's the point in voting for them just to get more of the same?

      Delete
    6. Daniel Duckworth • Mike. You are being disingenuous. No honest observer could ever mistake the two. Asking that question breaks down any trust one might feel in having a discussion with you.

      Delete
    7. Daniel: The policies are the same...just give me a distinction. I will ask you now: What has Obama signed into law that you disagree with?

      If i'm wrong don't simply tell me i'm wrong but show me where. That's all i'm asking.

      In fact I rarely agree with Rick Santorum but here: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7396172n

      Delete
    8. Daniel Duckworth • Okay. I'll play along. Please explain to me how the people of Massachusetts deciding they want a state run health care system is in any way the same as Obamacare? Also please explain to me what Ron Paul would have done as governor under the same circumstances? (other than not take the job in the first place).

      Delete
    9. Romney wrote and promoted that plan. Ron Paul wouldn't have. He would have said plainly that no government has the right to force people to buy a product. Romney also supported the same plan at the federal level when he ran in 2008...so we would have had Obama/Romneycare if either of those was elected in 2008. Obamacare was exactly modeled after Romneycare. Also the fact that Romney believes ANY government has the right to force a citizen to buy a good or service speaks volumes.

      Ron Paul would have not violated the rights of the minority by succumbing to the will of a majority by forcing them to buy a product. He would have veto'd the bill just like Walker did with the union thing in Wisconsin. It may have cost him re-election or he may have had four years to enact private measures, balanced a budget, veto'd tyranny, proven that liberty=prosperity, changed some minds, and been re-elected.

      Of course your hypothetical question is not an answer to my legitimate question. What has Obama signed into law that you feel makes him a horrible President?

      BTW: I'm not as disingenuous as you may think. I supported W. both times. I supported McCain last time. I moved to Ron Paul a couple of years ago by studying history, the constitution, and debating his supporters and reading his books. I used to think he was a nut and wouldn't even listen to people who supported him. I got to my position now by having an open mind and debating. When people told me I was wrong about Ron Paul and I asked them why they gave me facts and statistics and history. I debated until I felt I had no debate left and began changing my position, the whole time studying what they were saying. The point is if RP is not the nominee I plan to write him in or vote third party unless someone can convince me why I shouldn't. I will not just lay down and say oh yes you are right but I am willing to debate honestly and be convinced that i'm wrong

      Delete
    10. That's exactly right Mike. The realities of governing are staring you right in the face. It's one thing to get reelected in a one horse district in Texas where you've delivered half the babies and then come out and tell the rest of America what we should all be doing. It's quite another thing to govern a state.

      You say "Ron Paul would have not violated the rights of the minority by succumbing to the will of a majority by forcing them to buy a product. He would have veto'd the bill just like Walker did with the union thing in Wisconsin...." Yes, and with 85% of the state being controlled by Democrats they would have overridden your veto and written their own plan. The facts of the matter are that the state was threatened with a loss of $383mm in medicare reimbursements. This was money the state was already spending on health care. Romney took a proactive approach to crafting a law that 85% of the public wanted and would have been enacted with or without him. I can only imagine how much worse the plan would have been without his input and acumen. Of course Ron Paul would have stood idly by and shook his head and said "forgive them Lord. they know what what they do".

      You also say "He would have said plainly that no government has the right to force people to buy a product" You mean like auto insurance?

      Mike, if you're interested in arguing hypotheticals I think you need to find a new audience. Those of us debating here live in the real world, which is a political world.
      "BTW: I'm not as disingenuous as you may think. I supported W. both times. I supported McCain last time. I moved to Ron Paul a couple of years ago by studying history, the constitution, and debating his supporters and reading his books...."

      I am truly happy for you (not patronizing here). I believe he is the right message but the wrong man. That's why I ask for Plan B. We have to live in the world of what is. I agree of the direction you want this to go but arguing against Romney (who was in the heart of the enemy battleground) and arguing for RP (who was sitting comfortably in Texas in a small district) and trying to compare their records is not smart.

      Delete
    11. I'm not interested in arguing hypotheticals I keep ASKING for specifics...and yes like auto insurance. No government has that right either. As far his veto being over-ridden and what he would have done as governor of Mass: YOU ARE ARGUING HYPOTHETICALS!

      Romney said in the 2008 debates that he felt his idea was the answer at the Federal level! Nothing hypothetical about it. Do you refuse to tell me what legislation Obama has signed that you dislike?

      Actually you're auto insurance argument proves my point...it wasn't that long ago that it would have been considered outrageous for governments to force people to buy auto insurance...but it happened and now it's so accepted that people use it as an argument to justify mandated healthcare...Someday they'll ue the healthcare mandate as precedent to expand more....we need someone who will stop this type of legislation...not create bipartisan coalitions to add more of it!

      Delete
    12. Daniel Duckworth • Okay. Let's try it this way. here's the difference between the two.

      Gov. Romney instituted his healthcare plan in Mass. because uninsured people were overloading the state healthcare system and the burden was being placed on the working class who had to pick up the tab. He did it to ease the burden on the taxpayers and hold the uninsured accountable.

      Obamacare is a socialist perversion of this same idea, but instead of easing the burden on the working class he is requiring businesses to provided healthcare to all of their employees, thus increasing the burden on business owners.

      Romney required individuals to buy their own insurance, Obama is requiring business owners to buy it for everyone else.

      Romney's was a capitalist plan based on accountability - You are responsible to pay for the services you use. Obama's is based on a socialist ideal that everyone should be taken care of without any personal responsibility.

      Delete
    13. Yes I doubt him because he said the opposite just a few years ago. I think his veto may have been over-ridden and then Paul would have challenged the law in courts and it most likely would have ended up in the supreme court effectively stopping the Federal Mandate from being passed in the first place while the state battle was being decided.


      Romney's was a corporatist plan forcing customers to buy a product is not capitalism...so you would be ok with a federal mandate if it only persecuted individuals as opposed to Corporations?

      Delete
    14. Beverly Farrar • There are several votes that RP has made that I don't agree with. Here is 4 among m

      Voted NO on requiring lobbyist disclosure of bundled donations
      Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits about obesity against food providers
      Voted NO on campaign finance reform banning soft-money contributions
      Voted NO on the Ryan Budget: Medicare choice, tax & spending cuts. (Apr 2011)

      This website is telling and seems to be a somewhat accurate rendering of voting records for all candidates. None have a particularly perfect record in my opinion.
      http://www.issues2000.org/Ron_Paul.htm


      It all boils down to whether you want to win the general election or not and who could actually win it.

      Delete
    15. Daniel Duckworth • If Mitt Romney is really as malleable as you say then he should be your first candidate. If we all concentrate on getting solid constitutionally minded people elected in place in the House and Senate. Replace John Boehner with Eric Canter I believe they will pull Mitt Romney as far right as you want him to go. You can't say that about Newt. You don't care for Santorum so I'll reserve comment on him.

      Mitt Romney balanced his budgets and created and funded a rainy day fund in the home of Tip (and tax) O'Neill. Teddy (which way to the bar) Kennedy and Barney (basement brothel) Frank. Obama has no interest in balancing the budget and in fact wishes to push the deficit further so as to force feed his redistributionist agenda. Obama is aggressively expanding agencies that are not authorized constitutionally such as the EPA, NLRB, HUD, Dept of Education. HHS. Romney has stated he will seek to eliminate agencies. Obama's committed to expanding the role of the federal government. Romney is committed to shrinking the federal government. This could go on all day long. At their most basic levels one believes the federal government is the center of the universe and citizens derive their rights from the government. One believes the government can only take away your rights.

      Delete
    16. Daniel Duckworth • "so you would be ok with a federal mandate if it only persecuted individuals as opposed to Corporations? "

      No. I am in favor of a state's right to decide for themselves and not the federal government. That's why I moved from CA to AZ.

      Delete
    17. Daniel Duckworth • Beverly, in all fairness to Ron Paul. Most of the votes they try and pin on him as being against his principles were really part of a bill that contained something else he was against. I don't question his adherence to his principles. Except for his answer on why his district had the highest percentage pork spending increases. He said something to the effect of "they're spending the money anyway so my district might as well get it's share". I read that to mean his constituents finally got on him about this. Proves no one is immune.

      Delete
    18. Mike Shaner • Ok Beverly I agree with theose votes but I understand you disagree with them. You have given me reasons you wouldn't support Dr. Paul but i'm looking for reasons you WOULD support newt or Romney

      Daniel but Mitt wanted his program at the federal level before it became so venomous to want such a thing

      Delete
    19. Point by point:

      "Gov. Romney instituted his healthcare plan in Mass. because uninsured people were overloading the state healthcare system and the burden was being placed on the working class who had to pick up the tab."

      Why were there so many uninsured people in Mass? Could it have been due to the laws that mandate that doctors cannot refuse service to someone who is uninsured? does this not ENCOURAGE people to not purchase insurance? why didn't romney work to repeal these laws? As well, was the State picking up the tab for these people? Why did Romney not work to place this burden into the private sector and allow it to be managed by charities and the like? Who decided that it was the taxpayers responsibility to pay the medical bills of people who neglected to purchase insurance? Why did Romney, if he is a capitalist, not take a free market approach to dealiong with the problem rather than a socialistic approach to soak the taxpayers by forcefully rediostributing their income to the benefit of these uninsured people who were encouraged by previous government actions to neglect having insurance? This is indicative of "capitalism" on romney's part? You have a strange definition of capitalism.

      You said: "He did it to ease the burden on the taxpayers and hold the uninsured accountable."


      Really? By forcing them to buy something that they perhaps did not want? To by a service that is itself not working within a free market system, and thus features escalated prices as a result of their being heavy government regulation and limited competition- both of which serve to drive up the costs of healthcare? If he wanted to truly ease the burden on the taxpayer, why not, as I suggested above, get the government completely out of the equation. THAT is a "capitalist" approach. Applying more laws is not.

      You said- "'Romney required individuals to buy their own insurance, Obama is requiring business owners to buy it for everyone else."

      OK- and your pojnt is? Both consiste of the use of government force to extract money out of private individuals for something that, again, they may not even want. Both consist of government overstepping it's only legitimate purpose of defending individual rights, and instead encroaches on those rights by mandating them to spend the fruits of their labor on something they may not choose to spend it on.

      You said: "Romney's was a capitalist plan based on accountability"

      Again, you have an odd definition of capitalism which seems to suggest that "the intentions justify the means." Capitalism, at its core, denotes a system of voluntary exchange. You negate the "voluntary" aspect with the application of government force. when the "voluntary" aspect is removed from the equation, under no definition (regardless of intent) are you practicing "capitalism."

      Even IF you could sell me on the fact that Romney's plan was somehow less repugnant than Obama's, you cannot sell me on the fact that it was "capitalism." It clearly is not, except in the most bastardized definition of the term. As well- it still contains a system wherein income is redistributed by government (for the "collective good", of course) rather than exchanged in a voluntary marketplace. there is precisely nothing "capitalistic" nor "free market" about Romney's plan.

      Delete
    20. Sean Andrews • It's not so much hypotheticals, it’s a about philosophy. Brian Williams: "Governor Romney, was [the financial system] overregulated prior to the collapse?" Mitt Romney: "It was poorly regulated. Markets have to have regulation to work." This kind of Republicanism is the one of Rockefeller, Nixon, Ford, Bush, and Hyde. The concession the party makes concerning governmental control over free enterprise it does at its own peril. Not only does it provide more policy space for leftist mischief, but it marginalizes the ideological horsepower behind modern conservatism. Mitt Romney says we need a government to ensure no one starts a bank in their garage, I'm unsure if he really believes that, or he thinks the majority of the republican electorate believes it. If it’s the former, than I'm surprised he was ever in finance. If it’s the latter, he should be leading the party AWAY from such an idea, rather than embracing them just to get elected. Either we believe markets work or they don’t. Property and contract rights are the means to strong markets. Regulation that assumes government agents know better than consumers and producers is no different than how the left see markets. This is not pie in the sky thinking, it has real implications. When Romney (the supposed 'mainstream' candidate) says something like that, it allows Gingrich to be PROUD of his support of Medicare part d, which created the largest set of unfunded liabilities in human history. Mr. Duckworth, my affinity of your defense of federalism is real; however, if we continue to accept progressive light to face another progressive, it ignites 3rd party support, enough to ensure another democrat victory. And Ms. Farrar, 30 years of not passing laws that distort markets, infridnge civil liberties, fund unconstitutional military engagements would be a stregnth, not a weakness.

      Delete
    21. Daniel Duckworth • Sean. There is no such thing as a free and unfettered market.

      Delete
    22. I will also ask what spending cuts (not rate of increase) has Romney proposed. I do agree with you that Mitt would be more likely to follow the crowd but that could be a double edged sword and I think we will disagree a lot on the virtues of Cantor

      Delete
    23. Daniel Duckworth • "Why were there so many uninsured people in Mass? Could it have been due to the laws that mandate that doctors cannot refuse service to someone who is uninsured? does this not ENCOURAGE people to not purchase insurance? why didn't romney work to repeal these laws?" How do you know he didn't? He didn't create the environment. He sure took steps to improve it though.

      "Why did Romney not work to place this burden into the private sector and allow it to be managed by charities and the like? Who decided that it was the taxpayers responsibility to pay the medical bills of people who neglected to purchase insurance?" the 85% Democratically controlled legislature.

      Look. I could rebut point by point. Romney did not live in the bubble Paul lives in. he stepped into a very different world. I suggest you study this further and ask yourself "What was the alternative given the circumstances he inherited and the environment he was in? to blithely say veto the bill or offer a private market alternative is just not being realistic.

      Delete
    24. Beverly Farrar • I'll let you decide who you want to vote on. I'm not interested in debating you on the merits of Ron Paul or any other candidate that running against him. Your arguments make no sense to me.

      The result of giving my opinion as to why I support Gingrich or Romney (in effect to uncover how much better RP would be) would only open the door for your expression of adulation of the man that can "walk on water", but obviously doesn't have the skills to govern (my opinion). If you've been on these discussions long enough, it's all been tried.

      I have sent you a link where you can examine the voting records, stated opinions, etc. as I have. So again, what's the point. You can read just as I can. Save your energy for someone who is trying to decide whether they want to nominate RP. I've decided.

      Based on everything I read for myself and have studied, he's not my guy. It's you that want to debate that issue. I have no interest in it. That trap has already been set many times and it goes on into eternity with no resolution.

      I just want to nominate the most likely candidate that can win the general. period.

      Delete
    25. Daniel Duckworth • It's not so much hypotheticals, it’s a about philosophy. Brian Williams: "Governor Romney, was [the financial system] overregulated prior to the collapse?" Mitt Romney: "It was poorly regulated. Markets have to have regulation to work."

      There is nothing untrue or unconstitutional about this statement. Brian Williams tried to bait him with "over". He responded "poorly" which implies "properly". This is a reality. Markets must be regulated.

      Not unlike immigration. Do we have the will to enforce the laws that are on the books? Does Ron Paul favor human freedom and open borders?

      Delete
  13. Daniel: So what you are saying is that you, Obama, and Romney all agree that free markets don't work, that we must have a state run economy, and that the debate should only be about the degree of regulation?

    If Markets were allowed to work and we didn't have a nanny state immigration would never be an issue

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Beverly Only Jesus walked on water...Ron Paul is not my savior and I don't appreciate the implication. He is an imperfect mad who I want to be President however if you will tell me why you prefer someone over Obama I promise not to compare him to Dr. Paul since that comparison seems to bother you so

      Delete
    2. Daniel Duckworth • "Mike Shaner • Daniel: So what you are saying is that you, Obama, and Romney all agree that free markets don't work, that we must have a state run economy, and that the debate should only be about the degree of regulation?" A bit dramatic don't you think? You pose the question as if a completely free and unfettered market place actually existed or could possibly exist. It reminds me of Ron Paul's foreign policy. It will work perfectly as long as all others are as virtuous as we are.

      "If Markets were allowed to work and we didn't have a nanny state immigration would never be an issue". not true. believe it or not people do come here for our freedoms too.

      Delete
    3. Beverly Farrar • The implication is that "he could walk on water if given half a chance" sorry for your non-appreciation of my perception. There is no intent to irritate or insult.

      However, how many ways do I have to say NO, I won't be drawn into the comparison study. That, in fact, is what it always turns into.

      Delete
    4. Yes people come for our freedoms and the ones that do work hard and contribute to society and there would be no reason to turn them away.

      Why can a free market not exist? nothing works perfectly but it would work far better than a regulated one regardless of everyone's virtues.


      While i'm turned off by your stance on free markets and still not completely convinced You have made some interesting points and I will consider them. I have asked this question a million times and you are the first to give me something to think about. I appreciate that

      Delete
    5. So Beverly your point is you just don't like Obama and you are going to vote against him no matter how bad his opponent is. It's not his policies you don't like...it's something else? Got it. I'll leave you alone now. Thanks for the conversation.

      Delete
  14. Beverly Farrar • Let . me . speak . slowly. I will vote for any GOP candidate that wins the nomination, because they are all more conservative than O. RP is not my favorite, so he won't get my vote during the nomination process. If voting today, I would vote for Gingrich or Romney because of their ability to govern and articulate their messages based on what my eyes see and my mind says.

    Thank you for your consideration.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Sean Andrews • Mr. Duckworth, thank you for proving my point (and my problem) with the moderate wing of the Republican Party. "Markets must be regulated...as if a completely free and unfettered marketplace actually exist or could possibly exist". As much as I'd like to explain volunteerism with you, I'd rather stay within the bounds of this conversation. Capitalism doesn't need apologetics, it needs champions. The market is self regulating. It's only (at our best) egalitarian and (at our worst) totalitarian impulses that bring us regulation by men rather than markets. Free market champions are not claiming there isn't a role for government. Government needs to be strong enough to defend individual rights to include enforcing contracts and property rights. What regulation started Kelly Blue Book? Who forces Whole Foods to place RHBt stickers on milk? When customers seek protection, entrepreneurs will seek that surplus. I love your use of "unfettered," to answer your question no, we haven't seen an unfettered market BUT, if our 18th and 19th century experience tells us anything the closer we get to "unfettered" markets the more prosperous we'll be.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Daniel Duckworth • Mike. in order for us to operate in a free and unfettered market with no regulation every other country would have to as well. Do you not recognize that?

      Delete
    2. Daniel Duckworth • Sean. Respectfully. Stop reading so many Von Mises inspired books and participate in the real world and economy. I do agree with this statement: "the closer we get to "unfettered" markets the more prosperous we'll be". I also agree with Jefferson when he said other nations must also be virtuous.

      Daniel Duckworth • and Sean, please call me Daniel or Dan if you like. Thx.

      Daniel Duckworth • Hey guys. Great debate. I'll' check in tomorrow. Mike, two questions.

      Which congressional district are you in?

      Who will you vote for in the general election?

      Delete
  16. Morris Gosa, LC • Why get Obama out of office- Because he is 1 branch of government with tremendous power. At present, he will not work with congress. On the other side, we need to get rid of Mitch McConnell and John Boehner- neither of whom are great leaders.
    Leadership is what we need to find- in the executive and the legislative branches of government. Nothing will get done without the branches working out their differences- not as a “my way or the highway”, but understanding that they are both not perfect. I believe that was a good paraphrase of Ben Franklin arguing for the acceptance of the constitution in September of 1787.If everyone goes after congress and takes both houses then Mitt, Newt, or Ron will move the country in the right direction.
    The way congress puts bills together these days makes it totally pointless to argue weather one candidate is equal to or different than the other. That argument is a way to distract from the greater need. The president cannot really effect how congress puts bills together. Ron Paul may veto but congress is the power base. After too many vetoes, congress will find a two-thirds majority to do as it pleases. That is why we need leadership in the white house and the congress.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Daniel: I disagree about the need for other nations to be virtuous in order for a free market system to work. If we had a free market it would cause more virtue by way of prosperity and competition. I also disagree that Sean should stop reading Mises...we need more people to do so. I'm in the 24th district of California and I'll vote for Ron Paul if he is the nominee- If he is not as of right now i'll have to see who the LP put's forward. If the LP puts forth a quality candidate i'll vote for him....if they put forth another Bob Barr, i'll either write in RP or not vote at all.

    Morris, it is possible America will like liberty and vote in congressman who would not override the veto's or present unconstitutional ones. I disagree that Mitt or Newt would move this country in the right direction but it's been a long discussion. The true power base is the states who could nullify unconstitutional federal laws if we had Rep's who had the gumption to do so. I am looking for a representative not a leader...someone who understand his job is to follow the constitution not infringe on my life. If a (Federal) candidate is not willing to be chained to the Constitution in all instances he is disqualified in my eyes bc he will break his oath

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. btw way morris you said we should get rid of Obama bc he will not work with congress....but If Paul didn't work with congress they'd find a way around it. So why don't they just find a way around Obama? I disagree with you that we need a President who works with congress but I see a fundamental flaw in your logic.

      To be clear I want dissident. I want it to be extremely hard for bills to be passed. I want true divided government. I agree that the best government governs least

      Delete
    2. Morris Gosa, LC • Nullification and secession were settled 160 years ago. You are right-states are where we need to put the power. The 17th amendment did huge damage to the checks and balances put into the constitution. Repeal that and the states can exert tremendous pressure on Washington. Get behind that movement!
      They cannot find a way around Obama because there is no will in congress to do so. There are no vetoes from Obama to speak of- he only bluffs- congress folds.
      I would disagree that I want a leader not a representative. He needs to lead by exerting pressure on the public, the media, and the congress to abide by the constitution. Our chances are better with Mitt, Newt, or Paul over Obama- but we need the congress to make it work. The New Deal legislation was not passed by FDR-congress and the courts fought him tooth and nail. LBJ led the way with the Great Society.
      Leadership- most important! Paul will not do that.

      Delete
    3. I disagree that nullification was settled...secession either (even though I didn't mention it) Simply by waging a war and dominating an opponent into submission. I believe if we elected Sheriff's who would arrest federal agents,and elected mayors, town councilmen, state reps and governors who would nullify we'd be better off. I also disagree that somehow newt or Romney would be more constitutional than Obama...Their records don't prove that. I also disagree that a President has any constitutional authority to put pressure on the media to do anything. If there is no will in congress to go around Obama why would they suddenly find the will to avert a President Paul? As I said if a candidate is not willing to abide by the constitution he is disqualified to me. I do agree about repealing the 17th....the 16th too...but I whole-heartedly disagree that nullification should be abandoned.

      http://www.tomwoods.com/learn-about-state-nullification/

      Delete
    4. Morris Gosa, LC • Mike it is called marketing. Come on, you are the networking and relationship pro.
      If people were willing to elect sheriffs that would arrest federal agents they would already have elected representatives to congress so that arresting federal agents would not be required. Along with the repeal of the 17th, the election of president would not be a big deal. But it is today, and I will agree to disagree.

      Delete
    5. Morris: People haven't even thought of the idea of nullification for the most part...but it is much easier to convince small communities to become active and do the right thing than an entire nation....I do agree with your opinion on the 17th and the effect it would have on the presidency.

      Delete
    6. Morris Gosa, LC • Thomas Jefferson, who, of course, wrote the Kentucky resolution of nullification in 1799 told President Washington during the formation of the Bank in 1791-92, that he was against it as unconstitutional, but that the use of the veto power should be used sparingly. The executive should yield to the representatives of the people in most instances. Of course, at that time the senate was under the control of the states by way of their election by the state legislatures.

      Delete
    7. I agree with Jefferson at the time about veto's being used sparingly...however, they exist for a reason. Jefferson would have also been against the massive power grab by the Federal Government from 1865 on....I think that would change his veto stance somewhat. I also think repealing the 17th would make his veto stance more justified. I agree 100% that repealing the 17th would do more for this country than I can describe...I will not argue that point.

      Delete
    8. Daniel Duckworth • This whole discussion is purely academic. Mike, no matter what you say there is no way you'll convince me that there is not a better choice, between Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, then Barack Obama. It's a luxury not to have to answer that question just yet but in November you will be asked to be a bit more pragmatic. Bravo for your "I'll just write in Ron Paul" stance. You've probably learned from experience that your lone presidential vote in the Socialist State of California won't mean a hill of electoral beans. My state is a different story so I can't afford to be so cavalier.

      I see your Rep is retiring so you do have a golden opportunity to affect the make up in the House of Representatives. If the 24th District does not send a strict constitutionalist Morris and I are going to hold you personally responsible.

      Likewise, I have an open Senate seat to rally for. I shoulder the same responsibility.

      Delete
    9. Morris Gosa, LC • I would agree that Jefferson and every other founding father is turning over in their graves over the governmental situation we are in right now. Jefferson probably added some fuel to the fire when he bought Louisiana in 1803. He himself believed his action was unconstitutional- but it was the right thing to do at the time.
      On the other hand, congress giving up its war powers and abdicating a lot of the budgeting process to the president, I would consider a greater tragedy to our freedoms. A president can only recommend actions to the congress. That is why I say congress is the real power and the real prize!

      Delete
    10. John Oliver • Daniel,
      Shame on you. If you understand the construct of our republican form of government then you would know not to paint every eligable voter with the same brush. After all, isn't Obama your President?

      Delete
    11. Daniel Duckworth • Please explain. You've lost me John.

      Delete
    12. Mike Cunningham • Great topic!
      In many of the discussions regarding politics we find comments such as Jennifer's, " saying young people are niave and uniformed" on the other side of the token older people are set in thier ways and tend to argue rather than disucss. It is often difficult to have open ended open minded discussion because of this, However we have come to this point of Nominate Ron Paul or Re-elect Obama??? The simple questions are do you want More Government or Less Government. I am reminded of a song by Janet Jackson what have you done for me lately.. My response less government.. Ron Paul. The same question is that of the GOP race more government or less governmentt my response Ron Paul. If find it quite odd that a majority of responses in the PC are discussions that include Ron Paul we are on our way to acceptance.

      When you hold your heart hostage you imprison your mind. When you free your heart you mind will follow MC 2012

      Delete
  18. Jennifer Wise ( LION Networker 3200+ Connects!) • Mike Cunningham.. please name any leader that the teens and 20 somethings have backed that have turned out to be a great leader.

    They heavily came out for Obama in 2008 and I dare say very few actually knew anything about the man.

    They liked that he is bi racial and " cool".. they followed their crowd. I asked many of them and they could not answer me. They said they wanted a Young President. That was pretty much their answers.

    I worked with many 20 somethings in 2008 so was around them a lot then so I heard their thought processes because I asked them.


    They knew less about the Obama track record as an adult voter. Most people who did vote for Obama knew very little about him in 2008.

    That is extremely sad.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I will agree about Obama and disagree about Kennedy...However there is a difference this time. Ask any RP supporter why they support him and you will almost always get answers regarding the issues...not that the 76 year old is cool...By the way: I'm 33, run three businesses, a homeowner, etc...At our Ron Paul meet-ups there aren't near as many of the young voters you describe as we'd like to see. To label the liberty movement as some sort of kids fad is disingenuous. Also, as you've seen throughout this conversation: It's not just the kids who can't explain why they would vote a certain way...It is sad.

      Delete
  19. Daniel Duckworth • If anyone wants to help push a solid conservative into the vacated House seat in Southern Arizona this is our man.

    http://www.antenori.com/

    ReplyDelete
  20. Daniel Duckworth • Why don't you guys get over this silly infatuation with Ron Paul and put your muscle behind something that matters!

    http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=867

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To me liberty and the philosophy matters and isn't silly.

      Delete
    2. Jennifer Wise ( LION Networker 3200+ Connects!) • Liberty and philosphy matters and is not silly at all. More important is someone who can realistically beat Barack Obama in a national election and then start reducing regulations and getting the economy going again.

      I think Sarah Palin is a good cheerleader to the conservatives but I don't think she is electable in a national election. Just my opinion.

      The USA is a center right country.. Not far right.. not far left. Our leader should be center right who can work and talk with all Americans.

      Delete
    3. Mike Cunningham • Jennifer RONALD REAGAN!

      Delete
    4. Jennifer Wise ( LION Networker 3200+ Connects!) • Mike C Reagan was a great President but there is not a Reagan on the scene today.

      Gingrich says he is but he is not. He in no Ronald Reagan.

      Delete
    5. Mike Cunningham • Jennifer
      With all due respect you argue like a liberal you asked me about the youth vote and a great candidate supported by the youth I replied ,"Ronald Reagan" Then you take it down a different path and yes we do have a Reagan in the Race it is Ron Paul. Let me refresh your memory...

      " please name any leader that the teens and 20 somethings have backed that have turned out to be a great leader".

      Delete
    6. Jennifer Wise ( LION Networker 3200+ Connects!) • I don't recall a great deal of the youth vote supporting Reagan in 1976 and 1980.

      1984 . yes but Reagan won in a landslide. The only state he did not win that year was Minnesota ( Mondales home state).


      I like alot about Ron Paul but he is no Ronald Reagan either. There is no Reagan on the scene today.


      Reagan had a very rare mix of people and executive skills that did not alienate people. Even democrats mostly liked him as a person and where friends with him.


      Reagan had outstanding one on one skills and he could relate to both rich and poor because he was born very poor.

      Delete
    7. Jennifer Wise ( LION Networker 3200+ Connects!) • Ron Paul is truly a Libertarian and not a Republican. He will never get the GOP nomination but some of his platform should be incorporated.

      In 30 years in Congress Ron Paul has presented about 500 bills and only one has been passed.

      Ron Paul supporters need to be realistic.

      Delete
    8. Mike Cunningham • Well Jennifer we are realistic and the same argument that you just stated about Ronald Reagan relating to both rich and poor is because he was born very poor is exactly the same way Ron Paul grew up very poor. Democrats like him and the youth like him because the message of Liberty Freedom and smaller government unite people. Libery Defined is a great book to read by Ron Paul..

      Delete
    9. Mike Cunningham • Daniel,
      What you state as a silly infactuation is our right to defend our freedom and liberties and god given rights. This is a Revolution to restore these principles from bottom to top, and top to bottom it is what our founding fathers fought for and it is what we will continue to fight for. If it is not Ron Paul it will be the carriers of the message going forward. We will not waiver we will not retreat we are here to stay. At least you can recognize the muscle behind the message ......you are half to acceptance my friend !!!!!

      Delete
    10. Jennifer Wise ( LION Networker 3200+ Connects!) • Mike C... with all due respect... what Democrats like Ron Paul? He is about as opposite as any democrats as I can possibly imagine.

      I like much of what Dr Paul says and the GOP needs to listen. Some of his foreign policy stances are a bit too isolationist for me but he makes some good points. I can see legalizing marijuana but not most other drugs.

      I still say he is getting delegates to get a platform and good for him. I hope he stays in the race to the end.

      I would rather see Newt get out. Dr Paul and Santorum are polling much higher than Newt in ALL the swing states. But Newt wants the other two to get out. Big Ego blowhard if you ask me! ( Newt)

      Dr Paul will not get the nod but the GOP needs to listen and incorporate some of his platform that is for sure . He is an honorable patriot and he needs to keep educating people. I think his role is the conscience of the party.

      Delete
    11. You need to understand we like him because he hasn't passed bills. The bills he has presented were protest bills that had no chance of passing. We've had this discussion already. So i'll ask another way...Jenifer, who do you support?

      Delete
    12. As far as being realistic goes- The gop needs to be realistic- If RP is not the nominee Obama will get a 2nd term. RP is the only one who can defeat Obama in the general

      Delete
    13. Jennifer Wise ( LION Networker 3200+ Connects!) • Mike Shaner.. I am going to support the GOP nominee because I want to beat Obama more than anything.

      My choices chose not to run. We have four good candidates now and we should all get behind the eventual nominee.

      ****************




      "As far as being realistic goes- The gop needs to be realistic- If RP is not the nominee Obama will get a 2nd term. RP is the only one who can defeat Obama in the general "


      If RP cannot win more than 5-24% in each state how is he going to win? Please provide your path to the nomination and 1144 delegates.

      Delete
    14. Mike Cunningham • Beverly,
      Yeah he did poll Low in SC and Florida the race is headed towards the west. Basically we are only a few minutes into this game with only 4 state caucus or primaries. I will ride this horse until the end regardless I feel the Good Dr. is making people stand up and take notice that the GOP has gotten side tracked and lost its focus. Just think about just about every discussion in this group is skewed toward the Ron Paul factor awarness is a good thing and will lead to positive change going forward.

      Delete
    15. Mike Cunningham • Jennifer,

      I live about 50 miles from Detroit Deep Blue City believe me when I say Democrats are warming up to Ron Paul. My parents both Dems there whole life Union members now registered Republican they caucus this weekend in Nevada.. Guess who.. Ron Paul a former vendor of mine in 08 lives in Denver rode the Obama train is now part of the Revolution my 82nd Airborne buddy liberal as can be now campaigning for the Dr. My son is working the boots on the ground in Nevada knocking on doors targeting independent and Democratic voters converting them daily. So you see they are out there.

      Delete
    16. Jennifer Wise ( LION Networker 3200+ Connects!) • I live in WA State and RP is encouraging people to be Caucus leaders but NOT to tell anyone they are Ron Paul supporters.
      I think Paul will pick up delegates in my state of Washington.

      I will be going to a caucus just before Super Tuesday. Super Tuesday in March should be definitive for the nominee by then or shortly after.

      I am glad to hear Democrats are coming this direction. I guess they are fed up with
      Obama?

      I hope the RP supporters will back whoever the nominee is. I think the nominee will listen to the RP supporters if RP is not the nominee. He would be wise to do so.


      All of them ignore growing groups at their peril. The world is changing and the GOP needs to decide who it is going to be.

      Delete
    17. Jennifer Wise ( LION Networker 3200+ Connects!) • I also think it is likely that Ron Paul will have a good number of delegates in Tampa at the convention

      Not enough to win but enough to be heard and being heard is what really counts.

      God Bless.

      Delete
    18. John Oliver • I've always found the argument that Ron Paul has been in Congress for 30 years and after authoring 500 bills and getting only 1 passed, humerous. Is that an indictment on him or the House he works in? I'm fairly confident we have a consensus opinion in this room that the two wings of the Big Government party have controlled the legislative process for decades. I have not read all the bills he has authored and I have no idea what legislation he was finally able to get passed. I just imagine him walking into a room of drug dealers and trying to convince them to stop giving out their drugs.

      This Congress and the constituents that put them there are nowhere ready for a Ron Paul style of leadership. If as Conyers says most of what they do is not authorized by the Constitution then of course Paul is out of touch.

      What do you call the one guy who refuses to conform? Apparently unelectable.

      Delete
    19. Jennifer Wise ( LION Networker 3200+ Connects!) • John Oliver... I think the time is coming for someone like Ron Paul. It is not now or yet and not him but he is paving the way.

      The GOP ignores him and his growing block of supporters at their peril. I think RP is in this thing for the delegates so he can get a platform and speech and get listened to.

      He knows he is not going to win but he is a patriot and doing the right thing for his country.

      The electorate is not there yet.

      Delete
    20. I couldn't support someone like net or Romney who over there careers have taken the exact same stances as Obama. I don't see the point in voting out Obama just to replace him with someone who is just like him. What would be the gain? As for democrats not supporting RP- some of them don't but a huge chunk of them do...perhaps you've heard of Blue Republicans. Look at Obama's base- Young, anti-war, and against the war on drugs...what candidate could dip into that base? There is only one. Ron Paul and Mitt Romney are virtually tied in the national polls against Obama...so yes Beverly I do pay attention to them. Newt/Santorum aren't even close in the head to head polling against Obama. Some of you seem to miss Ron Paul's point on drugs: He is not saying "legalize" anything. He is saying leave it to each state to decide for itself as the constitution prescribes. He wouldn't go into office and make an executive decision to legalize drugs all over the country-he would simply end the Federal war on drugs. Isolationism is a buzz word that doesn't apply to Ron Paul. Isolationist believe in protective tariffs and are against free trade. Ron Paul believes we should have free trade with everyone. The correct term is non-interventionist. There is a huge difference. Calling Ron Paul an isolationist is akin to saying I am an isolationist because I don't go in and beat one neighbor while bribing another. It's a fun debate but the fact is the GOP can't win the election without the independents-Ron Paul leads all GOP candidates by a wide margin when it comes to independents. They can't win without RP supporters-and as I said at the top of this post-why would we vote for a clone of Obama (or worse Santorum)...we wont. So if the GOP is interested in defeating Obama they should start trying to persuade Republicans to nominate Ron Paul....that is the only Republican who can be in the white house next year. If anyone else is nominated Obama wins a 2nd term. This isn't blackmail as some have said earlier-it is a mere observation of logic.

      Delete
    21. Jennifer Wise ( LION Networker 3200+ Connects!) • If you do not back who oever the GOP nominee is and let the RP supporters be heard you almost guarantee that the fracturing gives Obama another term.

      To the RP supporters.... DO YOU REALLY WANT ANOTHER TERM??? Look at the 1976 election....

      look at Jimmy Carter and Ted Kennedy fighting in 1980. It doesn't go well for a party that divides.

      The election gets handed to the other party.


      The USA cannot literally afford another 4 years of Obama and the DEBT he will keep heaping on us.

      From an article I posted yesterday. Click through discussions for the full article. Here is part of it.

      Ron Paul and Santorum clearly poll better than Newt ( by a 2 to 1 margin) that Newt does.

      Part of the article: click to read the entire article from townhall.com


      "Rick Santorum on Tuesday morning pushed back against calls to drop out of the GOP presidential race in order to unite the conservative vote. Santorum told Fox News that people like fellow GOP candidate Newt Gingrich shouldn't tell other candidates to "get out of my way." Gingrich, earlier in the morning, called for conservatives to unite behind one candidate. In the past, he has suggested other GOP candidates drop out of the race in order to avoid splitting the vote. "My message is everybody should run," Santorum told Fox News. "I don't think people should be telling other folks to get out of the race and get out of my way. If you want to run a race, run a race. You don't ask someone to quit just because you think you're the better candidate. I think I'm the better candidate but Newt has every right to run."


      If Santorum had really wanted to twist the knife a bit, he could have mentioned the latest data from Gallup, which shows that Gingrich is the Republican nominee worst suited to compete with President Obama in crucial swing states. According to the survey, Mitt Romney narrowly leads Obama among registered voters in Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin. Santorum and Ron Paul each poll within single-digits of the incumbent in these states. What about Newt?



      But Obama leads Gingrich, 54%-40%. The president's standing against him has risen nine points since early December; Gingrich has fallen by eight. Gingrich fares less well than Texas Rep. Ron Paul, who trails Obama by seven points, 50%-43%, and former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum, who also trails by seven points, 51%-44%.

      Delete
    22. Jennifer Bacani • I would vote on principle and for the best person I believe will do a good service to this country. I understand that we need someone that we believe will "win" over Obama, so then let it be a man with the best character and vision, someone who supports our constitution and not another (traditional) politician. We need someone that can take this country back to the Constitution and original principles where the people govern and not a large government that has overextended their reach into many areas of our personal lives. This man stands for something and he's fighting for the country's best interest, not for lobby groups. Ron Paul is someone I would definitely "write-in". He's gaining more popularity with the younger demographics... kudos to his supporters and staff for getting his message out! Time for a REVOLUTION. I'm over the negative campaigning and backbiting...time to stand behind someone truly worthy.

      Delete
  21. John Oliver • Veto power or veto override power, which is preferable? For me, I don't trust anyone to do what they say they will do unless they have the history to back it up. All it takes is the pressure of the job and then who they have always been will surface.

    I would prefer to a) extend the control of the House and b) get back control of the Senate. If we can stick together long enough to promote a Ron Paul platform at the convention then we may accomplish both a) and b) and at the same time forcing the party platform further towards Paul's vision.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jenifer Wise: Either I am not making my point clearly or you are ignoring it but I will try it another way:

      No, I don't want another term of Obama...which is precisely why I (we) will not vote for Newt or Romney....because electing either will be the exact same as electing Obama. Over the next few days i'll be writing a series of articles on oakpark republic.com comparing the records/positions of all the candidates to Obama....The only one who has a record better than Obama is Ron Paul. So if the General election is between:

      Obama/Romney: I'll write in Ron Paul, vote libertarian, or not vote. Romney is neither better or worse than Obama so voting for either is pointless

      Obama/Newt: Same as above. Newt is a progressive, a self described "Roosevelt Republican."

      Obama/Santorum: This is the only case I would consider voting for the lesser of two evils...which would be Obama. Santorum is a tyrant who can only compare to Lincoln/Wilson/Roosevelt. I probably couldn't bring myself to vote for Obama. so i'd probably do as above....but I wouldn't vote for Rick "the tenth amendment run amuck" Santorum under any circumstance ever.

      Obama/Paul: Obviously i'd vote for Paul.

      If the GOP wants our vote they should nominate a liberty minded candidate...if they refuse to do so and it cost them the election so be it...maybe after a loss they will start pushing liberty candidates instead of big government progressives

      Delete
    2. Jennifer Bacani • Jennifer Wise: It wasn't too long ago that people believed we couldn't vote in a "black" president. The TV series 24 became popular and more people became open minded to this. With the state of the country in one of the worst times in history facing serious financial crisis, housing and employment issues, and war...things were hitting home and negativity was climbing... the people desperately wanted things to change. Obama's message of "Hope and Change" was a marketing success! I'm sure we can all agree, his message for hope and change was exactly what the masses were looking for and he promised he can do this! This is how desperate people see a need for change in our system! Classic opportunity!!!

      I have no doubt that RP supporters have the energy and the passion to see this thing through. I know GOP is working hard to discredit Ron Paul and ignore him and his growing group of supporters. The ones that have heard Ron's message and understands what he stands for can't be ignored. This is the time people really need to see change and you can't do that by electing politicians that do NOT follow the constitution and support legislation to the detriment of the country's long-term future and American culture. The US has a wonderfully crafted Constitution that has made this country prosperous in many ways. This is why, at a time where people are desperately wanting change, it is even more pressing that we do NOT surrender to GOP's pressure and we continue to support/write-in Ron Paul.

      This is not the time to be doubtful. This is a time for action. This is the time to stand behind what you believe in this country and who can bring about the best results and real change. You are certainly not going to get any change without Ron Paul in the GOP. Who wants "another life-long politician" in office??? Yes we need change..but we're going to get that by going back to the Constitution with libertarian policies and fiscal conservative values.

      We have now had a "black" man as POTUS. ANYTHING is possible...and it is DEFINITELY a serious possibility that Ron Paul will win.

      Delete
    3. Jennifer Wise ( LION Networker 3200+ Connects!) • Jennifer Bacani. I think Obama was elected BECAUSE of his skin color and not in spite of it.

      Look at his resume. Do you really think if Obama had been a do nothing state senator and community organizer and was white he would have been elected POTUS?



      Never.... the first person of color sadly should have been the party of Abraham Lincoln and not the party that still wants to enslave a voting bloc for a few cents.


      God Bless you Jennifer Bacani for your idealistic optimism. Study the 1976 and 1980 elections and come back and tell us what you think.

      When a party divides itself.... the other party wins. If you want Obama in for 4 more years and lots more debt YOU and your generation will have to pay for... vote Ron Paul.

      Delete
    4. Jennifer Bacani • Jennifer Wise: ABSOLUTELY Obama was voted in because of his skin color. I've spoken to people that had voted for Obama and I would note that one of the voters was a college student. He explained to me that many of the college students liked his message of "hope and change" and thought it was a "cool" thing to have a black POTUS like in the tv show 24. Yes, Hollywood is a great influence in politics.

      I will not compromise my vote just to put in another politician into office. Both Republicans and Democratic parties are responsible for what has become of our country as it is today. If I truly want to see change in government, it will come from supporting Ron Paul and his libertarian views. If you choose to vote anyone other than Ron Paul, it will not be the Ron Paul supporters that are causing the divide in the party...it will be those like you who refuse to support the Constitution, see Ron Paul as a true contender, and want to participate in all the negative political campaigning. We are tired of all the negative campaigning and want to get to the real issues that matter.

      What we have going on right now...this is not what our generation wants and this is not what we will choose to leave behind for the future generations. Until you can see outside of the box and look beyond what is possible, you will continue to keep limiting yourself with these beliefs and take great risks. My vote will stand for something greater.

      God bless you for your attempt to educate me on how you believe how we would win against Obama. I've heard Ron's message. He follows and values "Reaganomics". I stand behind Ron Paul.

      Delete
    5. Jennifer Wise ( LION Networker 3200+ Connects!) • Here is why Ron Paul cannot and will not win.

      Most of the country is center right... Ron Paul is a libertarian and most Americans do not express many of his views.

      They ( including me) like about 70-80% of his views. Those things can be incorporated in.

      Just my take.. Ron Paul will never be President of the United States... it may be Rand Paul or someone coming along to take up this mantle ( and someone should who is younger and more charismatic) but it will not be RP this year or any year.

      He cannot get over 25%of any vote and that is not a winning candidate. Bring his platform in to the fold of the GOP and the RP supporters win.

      Find and younger charismatic candidate who can run in a few years ( preferably a Governor with private business experience) and leave the radical things out of the platform.

      Good luck!

      Delete
    6. Jennifer Bacani • "most of the country is "center right"??? I believe that is short sighted and a serious underestimation of the passion and movement that the people are moving towards who really see a need for change in this country.

      These times are changing. If so many are center right, Obama would not have been elected. People want serious change and not more of the same thing. It's time for someone to take the Constitution and restore powers and appropriate rights back to the people. You won't get that by electing anyone else.

      Delete
    7. Jennifer Wise ( LION Networker 3200+ Connects!) • Obama billled himself as quite moderate. Mr. Hope and change.

      Remember his " We are not red states, or blue states but the United States?"

      Obama pulled the wool over many voters.

      Jennifer Bacani don't give up the fight... Ron Paul has zero chance of getting 1144 delegates so therefore zero chance of the GOP nomination.

      RP knows he will not win but he is getting the word out. God Bless him for it and a younger person needs to take his mantle and run with it.


      As it stands, RP has about 15-20% of national support.. not enough to win this time but don't stop trying. The colonists needed 150 years of British rule to get out from under the tyranny.

      These things don't happen over night.

      Someone in your generation Jennifer Bacani. I like your thinking. Keep at it!

      Delete
    8. Mike Cunningham • Gees Jennifer give young folks some credit our society in general wether old or young need to take the right of the vote serious we get a D as society as a whole when it comes to reseaching our candidates. This whole notion that People are too old or the youth is naive is just like our government putting people in to classes and racial groups. If you really have the time to listen I know a certain 18 year old that would rock your fundamental believes and realy make you think about your ideals. At 14 he was the nations youngest delegate he really knows his stuff.

      Delete
    9. Jennifer Wise ( LION Networker 3200+ Connects!) • Mike C..we have some outstanding young people I think I know the 18 year old you speak of.

      It is going to be that generation that inherits this mess so they need to find a leader and get that leader ready to lead.... it is going to get worse.

      God Bless America.. and all the candidates who dare to run and subject themselves to ridicule.


      But Mike C... you know that in 2008 a very uninformed electorate voted in Obama.. young and old. Shame on us for that.

      Will we learn from that?

      Delete
    10. John Oliver • I certainly agree with you Mike. You participated in the Root Cause discussion and clearly the focus needs to be on personal responsibility. What does it mean to be a good citizen in this Republic and then make a path to become one. Civics education can get them there.

      Delete
    11. Jenifer Wise: Either I am not making my point clearly or you are ignoring it but I will try it another way:

      No, I don't want another term of Obama...which is precisely why I (we) will not vote for Newt or Romney....because electing either will be the exact same as electing Obama. Over the next few days i'll be writing a series of articles on oakpark republic.com comparing the records/positions of all the candidates to Obama....The only one who has a record better than Obama is Ron Paul. So if the General election is between:

      Obama/Romney: I'll write in Ron Paul, vote libertarian, or not vote. Romney is neither better or worse than Obama so voting for either is pointless

      Obama/Newt: Same as above. Newt is a progressive, a self described "Roosevelt Republican."

      Obama/Santorum: This is the only case I would consider voting for the lesser of two evils...which would be Obama. Santorum is a tyrant who can only compare to Lincoln/Wilson/Roosevelt. I probably couldn't bring myself to vote for Obama. so i'd probably do as above....but I wouldn't vote for Rick "the tenth amendment run amuck" Santorum under any circumstance ever.

      Obama/Paul: Obviously i'd vote for Paul.

      If the GOP wants our vote they should nominate a liberty minded candidate...if they refuse to do so and it cost them the election so be it...maybe after a loss they will start pushing liberty candidates instead of big government progressives

      Delete
  22. Amen, hallelujah, brother.

    I am totally furious with many of my fellow so-called "conservatives" who have failed to get in behind the one real conservative in the race, Ron Paul.

    It's hilarious They will quibble over some small part of Paul's program and then fall in behind radical leftist Mitt Romney or flip flopper Newt Gingrich with whom they have profound disagreements on many issues. William F. Buckley commented years ago that "the preferred enemy is on the right." It appears viscerally a lot of alleged conservatives would rather have either of the twins Barack Obama or Mitt Romney than libertarian Ron Paul even if it means selling out almost everything they allegedly believe in. I am especially angry at the talk radio windbags on this.

    By contrast liberals almost always emphasize the most radical person, group, proposal, on the basis of “See what you will get if you don’t support me?”

    Thus for a century liberals were able to make use of Marx’s “socialism is the wave of the future” myth. “If you don’t vote for Mitt Romney (or George Romney, or William Millikan, or Richard Nixon, or Bob Dole), you will get someone like Fidel Castro or V. I. Lenin because socialism is the wave of the future.”

    Actually, there is no wave of the future. Politics can go either way. As Albert Jay Nock observed, "There is no such thing as a lost cause, because there is no such thing as a won cause.”

    ReplyDelete
  23. and he "stopped.... is it to win?" Is Ron Paul "our" BENEDICT ARNOLD???

    ReplyDelete