Posted on 01/31/2012 12:00:06 PM PST by presidio9
The first primaries of 2012 are complete, but the fight over the proper role of government continues. The question before GOP primary voters is who best reflects their own answer to that question, and then, who is best suited to make that case to the American people?
A clear winner has yet to emerge, but there is little question about who has captured the loyalty of young Republican voters on this issue. Although finishing fourth overall, Ron Paul once again won the youth vote in South Carolina, winning 31% of ages 18-29, compared to Newt Gingrich who won 28%. Paul’s appeal, or more accurately, the appeal of Paul’s limited government message, is a key story to emerge from the Republican primaries.
There’s no mistaking the trend.
Mitt Romney won the New Hampshire primary, getting approximately 39% of the total vote. Ron Paul finished second with 23%, Jon Huntsman finished third with 17%, and Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum each won about 9% of the vote.
Yet young voters would have picked a different winner. According to Fox News exit polls, in New Hampshire, Paul won nearly half (46%) of the votes of people ages 18-29, while Romney won second place with just 26%.
Paul also won the youth vote in Iowa. In the Hawkeye State almost half (48%) of the Republican caucus goers ages 18-29 supported Paul, compared to 23% for the otherwise victorious Santorum, and 14% for Romney.
What is so appealing about Paul to young voters? One answer is that Paul has been the most outspoken candidate defending the importance of free enterprise and the limited role of government. And he has had a
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
I will avoid using with you but will for others point out the simple logic that no one would take too much Tylenol unless they were suicidal, but losing control on heroin can cause you to tox up to a lethal amount without even knowing it...
Unless of course you plan on a national druggie monitoring team...
Hey, that is a shovel ready employment project...
I agree with your assessment of the “educational” establishment. College today, in many respects, was where the sixth grade used to be before 1900. And you are to be commended, even if your principal role in your daughters’ progress was only to give them the confidence to expect to succeed, with proper application. You obviously were never intimidated by the prevailing panorama of excuses for failure.
Just as I thought, you are a big government statist, IMHO there is little difference between a big government statist and a Marxist, Fascist or socialist. All are big government statist. The USA got along fine without the FDR Food and Drug Administration but then big government statists like you would not be able to control people behavior without it so I understand why you like Roosevelts’ FDA.
Ding, ding, ding... we have a winner Don Pardo.
The appeal of a formulaic ideology that a simple, saving, hidden truth (an ideology) will explain and answer all is very strong for adolescents.
I know I thought it very impressive in my early 20s as well. The complexity of Principles and Beliefs with the associated context of history, custom and convention, let alone settled law, were all too complex and messy. This is the appeal of ideological libertarianism.
Marxism, Nazism, in fact all the ...isms that rest upon ideology are very appealing to the young.
Kirk reminded us that Patrick Henry called upon us to "pick up the Lamp of Experience" and I think that is often the simple answer rather than rationalistic schemes.
That’s what I hear. My nephews - who are straight arrows - talk about Ron Paul because of two things.
They want to see the constitution restored.
And they are angry that all the oldsters are going leave them to foot the bill for this incredible debt that their parents have given them. (we are going to leave them penniless by our actions).
The drug thing is mostly a red herring as with Paul’s stance on states rights, a state could craft drug laws that would execute pot smokers. In listening to my nephews it seems he is against Federal laws. And it was FDR that used the commerce clause to involve the Fed with every aspect of our lives. And are any of us going to support FDR, the near communist?
In my opinion I would actually like to see different states with different laws - then I could live in a state that reflects my beliefs and not have the Fed force its progressive PC agenda on all of us.
You are such a Paulitard.
Can't deal anything more than the most simplest of arguments.
It's ok, we are used to it from you guys, being all sorts of smarter than us and all.
I do admire your FR survival skills though.
BTW you do know the difference between the food distribution system of today verses 100 years ago, right? You also understand the difference between regulations that define food safety and those that define what we can and cannot eat? You do understand such things don't you?
Discussing anything with a Paul supporter is like discussing statistics with my four year old granddaughter.
I can’t agree. Moving our troops off shore, but keeping them within the waters of the ME is not pulling out.
No. You didn’t rebut. You stated your ideology. Rebuttal requires facts, which you do not have. We will not agree, except to disagree. Legalization of drugs has no place in the ideology of Conservatives. You may keep it where it belongs - to liberals and libertarians.
Up to a point...
What you seem to have no problem with is the abandonment of rule of law (our Constitution) for democracy (mob rule). If you doubt that then just look around at all the unconstitutional laws a regulations that have been imposed on this nation for the latest "cause celeb". Franklin said "A republic ma'am if you can keep it", obliviously with thinking like yours we can't.
LOL....
Yeah. You laugh. I wince!
no one would take too much Tylenol unless they were suicidal,
"What are the most common poisons for adults? Pain medicines (analgesics) which can be over-the-counter, prescribed, or illegal. Examples include aspirin, oxycodone, acetaminophen, methadone, and ibuprofin." - http://www.aapcc.org/dnn/PoisoningPrevention/FAQ.aspx
but losing control on heroin can cause you to tox up to a lethal amount without even knowing it...
A major cause of heroin OD is variable potency, which could be eliminated with legalization and regulation.
Wrong as usual. Here's the fact-based rebuttal:
Prohibition is irrelevant to your argument, because alcohol and pot are not the same thing,
That they are not the same thing is what's irrelevant. They are both addictive mind-altering substances (but alcohol is more addictive, and the only one that can directly kill you).
and never will be. For example, while plenty of people enjoy a glass or two of wine with a meal, the only reason anybody ever smoked pot was to get stoned. Period.
Some claim to drink only for the flavor - and some of those are probably telling the truth, while others enjoy the mild buzz they euphemize as "relaxing" or "unwinding." At least a sizeable minority of drinkers seek the mental effects; so even if that percentage is less than 100%, the difference is too thin a reed to support the complete banning of one versus the regulated legality of the other.
Got it...
BTW, for the sane, the only power the federal government has is that which we give it. That it is abused does not negate those roles the federal government does well in the modern age.
That is why the Foundering Fathers the Paulitards always talk about were fortunately much smarter than Paul or his many minions themselves. They designed a system of government that could react to the many changes in technology and culture that would follow in the next centuries.
Understanding this, and how the benefits of properly managed relationship between federal, state and local governments in an age where people interact and use goods and services from a much broader geographic world is the difference between sane conservatism and the nuttier libertarian/anarchist mentality. The desire to have an excess of such, or to have regulations over personal choice defines the difference between Conservatives and Liberals.
Really would a sane conservative say that reasonable interstate transportation standards are a bad thing, that reasonable FAA standards are a bad thing? Of course not. This is why was Reagan a Conservative, not a libertarian, because he was reasoned.
Think of this do you want a Aircraft managed under the regulations of Mississippi flying over your town? (I am in Mississippi, trust me, you don't).
There is a difference, a line between common sense good policy and being a full blown statist. Paulitatrds cannot see nuance or understand beyond their black and white simple Ron Paul infused world.
Nice try - fail!
Rebuttal requires facts, which you do not have.
I have a four year old son, I know the feeling...
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.