Posted on 02/20/2010 2:42:51 PM PST by onyx
As to Beck's speech, I saw it, and it was pretty much no different than his TV show. So he doesn't think the Republicans have hit rock bottom yet in terms of their need to change. I dunno. We'll see.
I find it hard, though, to accept the notion that "there's no difference" between one party that votes close to 100% FOR a health care bill and one whose combined Senate/House numbers were 267/268 AGAINST. Huh???? This is as starkly different as you can get.
Sure, the GOP still spends money. Clue: read the chapter in my forthcoming book, Seven Events that Made America America. The very nature of the two-party system is to bid for votes via patronage/spoils/money. I've come to the conclusion that it is the nature of freely-elected democracies, and that the only hope for "restraining" government is to make sure the private sector outgrows it and reduces it relatively.
Thanks for setting the record straight, FRiend.
Thanks for clearing that up nutmeg. It had many of us scratching our head.
Yep. What really surprised me was when Laura Ingraham had Mitt on and was talking to him like he was Mr. Wonderful, handing him all kinds of softball questions. She usually sees through the crap.
I don’t expect her to rip him to shreds, but a tough question here or there doesn’t hurt. Might want to start by asking him how he’s going to do better than last time considering he didn’t last 5 minutes against McLame. Mitt also thought that the Bush bailouts and 0bama stimulus were the greatest thing since sliced bread, so how’s he going to reconcile that with Republican voters since 98% of them absolutely hate the concept and are still pissed about it.
That the State can better define Marriage, (which has existed as a church sacrament for thousands of years), or that the State can do better, even though no government in existence has survived more than a small fraction of that?
Christian views on marriage have not changed for two thousand years, but secular views have changed drastically.
Which is the more enduring definition?
You already wish to establish a definition of marriage which excludes the definitions of Islam and some other religions.
I have no real problem with that, but let's be honest about where that definition comes from.
If you leave that entirely to the State or the whim of the voters, you will have no greater stability in marriage definitions than you have in the state. Considering the changes of the State in the past few decades, the state is a borderline nutcase, but within the traditional Christian denominations, there has been no significant change in the definition of marriage.
(No 'church' which acknowledges homosexual unions nor polygamy has remained within the traditional Christian envelope).
I'm not sure exactly where you would draw the dividing line which would label Ron Paul "not a conservative", or which conversely label Rand Paul "not a libertarian". Certainly, on domestic policy, their positions are almost identical: On economic issues, both are pure libertarian capitalists. On social issues, both could be described as "pro-life libertarian" in general principle (anti-abortion, but leave other "victimless" social issues up to the individual) and "pro-life federalist" in general practice (anti-abortion, but leave other "victimless" social issues up to the States). And of course, both are libertarian purists on individual Gun Rights.
Even on National Defense, both Ron and Rand Paul would agree with the statement, "National Defense begins with Border Security"; and both agree with the statement "when we must fight, we declare war as the Constitution mandates" (that's directly from Rand Paul's website). The biggest differences are that Rand Paul supports the war in Afghanistan, and favors military tribunals in Guantanamo (for those suspects against whom we have any actual evidence, with deportation back to their native country for those whom we don't). So, while they have the same "Border Security first" governing philosophy on National Defense -- Rand Paul is a little more hawkish on Afghanistan, and Terror suspects.
That's breaking down the issues "point by point" for you as honestly as I can, from everything that I have read about both. I'm certainly open to correction.
hehehehehehehe...you said “dumbass”
Incidentally, my referense to Sarah Palin and Rand Paul being “arm in arm, politically” referred to their mutual support; not to them being agreed on every issue. Sarah Palin herself has said that her main reason for supporting Paul as staunchly as she does — is that she thinks that Paul is, overall, as strong a States’ Rights federalist as she is; not that she completely agrees with him on every single issue.
Good summary. Not that many will bother to listen.
Well, I do my best. Thanks.
It's all about life. I've changed on this in the last decade. It is now evident to me that Life is not an issue. Life is a God-given Right. No one has the authority to take it away unless in response to reprehensible crime after due process of law.
God-given. (Say that again...and again...and again....)
I couldn't agree more and the "leave it up to the states" crowd DOES NOT believe that life is a God-given right, they believe that life can be voted away legislatively or by referendum.
Or by public opinion polls, which they feel free to manipulate.
“DO NOT put any stock in that ridiculous CPAC straw poll that they insist on doing year after year! It bugs me so much that the media takes this non-scientific poll so damn seriously.”
And yet they don’t take Rasmussen seriously...great.
They should do away with the poll, if it’s been so hijacked...what’s the point??
Furthermore, they should start steering the org back toward conservative control, lest they become like the adrift GOP.
One other thing I would ask folks to carefully consider - this is very important - is that just because one officer of government, or one branch of government, at any level of government, has abrogated their sworn oath, no other officer of government thereby has any excuse for abrogating their own.
Each and every one of them has sworn before God and man to secure the Blessings of Liberty to Posterity, and to protect innocent human life.
Agreed. Which is why we should NEVER give control of our own life over to any other man, nor should we ever seek dominion over any other man.
Period.
Oh yeah, I forgot about that one.
Straw polls are ridiculous and nobody really takes them seriously. There are so many shenanigans that go on. WHO CARES we have to focus on 2010.
Very true.
This lie again. You know both the Paul's support a Right to Life Amendment. The quotes have been posted.
Disgusting that you are allowed to continue that libel on thread after thread.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.