Is Ron Paul still in the race?
I haven’t looked at this thread for a week.
The media is ignoring him as expected.
But anything the media ignores is probably something a billionaire like Ted Turner, Richard Mellon Scaith or Rupert Murdoch does NOT want us to see.
I noticed that a Ron Paul “supporter” kept arguing above that it was wrong to give Iraqis a chance (the Shiites and Kurds at least - the Sunnis cheered on 9-11 and they’ve been getting payback ever since).
But much of the conservative interest in Ron Paul has been in spite of his stance on the war on terror, not because of it.
They don’t necessarily want Ron Paul to be a spoiler in the general election, but they do want him to be a power broker in the primaries if he can stop spewing anti-war nonsense and stick to his correct policy against lawmakers making so many new laws to fence us in.
Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo are the only candidates willing to vote against feminist laws that too many Republican women go along with the Democrats on.
Keep in mind that, on the subject of anti-feminism, Republican male voters are NOT going to lie down. For us, a Republican candidate who is afraid to even mention the word “feminism” is almost no better than her Heinous.
That said, Ron Paul has not been talking about his anti-feminism recently. So I see no reason to vote for him or care much if he becomes a power broker.
Keep in mind, BlackElk, that half the Republican Party is relatively anti-Socon, regardless of whether they consider themselves Libertarian or libertarian or even know what that means. They know the history of “Victorianism” where males agreed with Queen Victoria about regulating male behavior. Today’s Queen Victoria is the National Organization for Women and its various Republican offshoots (women’s organizations that pretend to be anti-feminist by saying they are pro-life and anti-lesbian).
Combatting abortionism and lesbianism might be a start, but is NOT combatting the greater scourge of gender feminism. To combat feminism, one has to make sure that the Bipartisan Women’s Caucus doesn’t get laws passed that men would disagree with (such as the VAWA).
When socons and feminists agree on everything else on the feminist agenda besides abortion...the 50% of male Republicans who aren’t socon aren’t happy.
On this thread, I have seen no discussion at all about the book “The Elephant in the Room”.
But the fact that half of Republicans are not socon, really is the elephant in the room or the 800 pound gorilla.
We are all going to lose the next election badly if we do not come together on something other than the war and abortion, where we mostly all agree.
The socons can start “agreeing” with the non-socons by immediately reading Robert Bork’s book “Slouching Toward Gomorrah” and reading the chapter on the danger of feminism.
Then the Republican candidates need to start mentioning the word “feminism” in their speeches and outlining concrete ways in which they will keep feminism from spreading.
But the Republican Party has, for the past 2 years, adopted a policy where they are embarrassed to mention the word “feminism”...because they think that Republican women embrace that ideology and they want to keep this “the women’s vote.”
I meant to say that we mostly all agree here on the war and abortion. Where we may not agree is on the following:
Just because some of the support that most of us have for OIF comes from feminists who want Muslim chauvinists dead, it was NOT acceptable for anyone in the Bush Administration to accomodate these war supporters by cutting deals that would help feminists in the social arena (VAWA).
It should have been a deal-breaker for the Bush Administration to work with feminists at all.
Regarding abortion, there are many Catholic countries that have a deal on this issue that keeps it out of politics:
1) it is officiall illegal but not punished if
2) there is a 72 hour waiting period
3) and the woman was counseled by the church or pro-life organization
4) health insurance does not cover it and the state has nothing to do with it
5) the abortion must be within the 1st trimester unless it is necessary to save the mother’s life, in which case the father can decide if the mother is unconscious
The Republican Party in the USA could clean up if they offered the above conditions and the Democrats refused to negotiate.
But they won’t.