They are.
The photo below was taken right outside of Zuccotti Park in October of 2011.
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 ...
Your cowardly ad hominem sums up your position and your character.
We've been at war in Afghanistan and Iraq for how long now? I'd say that the billions, or is it now trillions, we've spent fighting a token war in those two countries, and around the world, provides evidence to the contrary that token wars don't cost much in the way of money. Try again retard.
Try answering the question: How much of our money would you like to spend?
I wouldn't mind if weed was legalized, and for conservative reasons...basically dedicating LE to more vital roles, an industry to rival big tobacco and all the jobs created, and the farms everywhere can benefit one way or the other, it grows in all 50 states. You know all the medical, biodiesel and fiber uses. It would also take away about half the income from these Mex drug gangs if we went domestic. That's kind of a big deal.
Anyway. If someone said we'd have twenty years of conservative leadership but pot laws would remain the same, that's great...the country is more important than my weed. I'll still be smokin' though. BTW, 50yo, own my own biz, semi retired on a sailboat, conservative guy.
Go Newt!
Ditto....I always loved it but I do without it unless I know someone who has it, then I enjoy(:
That’s the way I am...catch as catch can. Hunting and foraging...lol...and all my friends know that debts are payable in “green” or the other “green” ;^)
Of course....and always a friend with weed is a friend indeed!!!
Back in the early days of Free Republic, the site was infested with Libertarians wanting to stand on soap boxes claiming how pure they were because of “principal”...they called the police jack-booted thugs...they spewed the childish clap trap that there was “no difference” between the two major political parties...and on and on and on...
They finally took their little phone booth sized convention of self appointed saviours of the republic and moved to other web sites (for the most part).
I am not going to waste time and band width on dumb back and forth about legalization of drugs...been there..am not wasting time on it any more....we have far more important and pressing issues that the silly crap about how the war on drugs is robbing us of freedoms.
Ron Paul is a nut...believes goofy conspiracy crap about Bush and 9-11...grossly misreads the Constitution regarding our national defense...blindly believes that Iran is not going to be a nuclear threat...and on and on...and no amount of time wasting Libertarian over-the-top generalizations will ever change my mind.
“”Collective property” is a potentially dangerous notion; I look forward to your fleshing out this thought.”
I’d be happy to, JustSayNoToNannies.
The entire United States is the collective psychological property of all United States citizens. It’s about sovereignty where all the people recognize these united states as our property. It’s how nations are created.
This way, if an enemy attacks New York City, we recognize it as an attack against the entire property known as these united states and the citizens who occupy that land.
If you disagree with that notion, maybe you’d like to see the people on 5th Avenue raise an army and go get the attackers after 9-11, while everyone else ignores the attack.
The collective of a nation is defined as “belonging or relating to all the members of a group.”
I realize you wanted to play juvenile libertarian mind games because I used the word “collective.”
The F’n commies don’t own that word. I do.
Good answer!
Thanks, I needed the laugh!
They are.
The photo below was taken right outside of Zuccotti Park in October of 2011.
Just say no dude....
Might just be the degree to which all the other candidates suck.
On another note, since you earlier brought it up, the issue of a "token" war on drugs being nonsense in your view - I give you Korea, Vietnam, and now the War on Terror. All three were and have been token wars. Now, do me a favor, and go choke on your meth pipe.
He called me a coward for my post to you regarding his being drug addled. I guess, simply because I didn’t “ping” him. He failed to realize, apparently, that if I were a coward I would simply have made a private reply to you instead of a comment where anyone could read what I wrote. Paranoia is one of the halmarks of someone who abuses drugs.
Of course not - you're just going to waste time and band width smearing all young Paul supporters. Buh-bye.
I was involved in the libertarian party back in the 1990s and helped develop and promote the private property tenets of libertarianism as laid out by the Cato Instititute.
Cato published a well-developed treatise on the concept of private property, where it came from and how to defend private property when confronted.
I don’t think Ron Paul has a clue about the tenets of private property. I seriously question whether Paul is a libertarian. I base my opinion about Paul on the fact that he doesn’t recognize the United States, collectively, as the private property of the citizens of these united states.
”Collective property” is a potentially dangerous notion; I look forward to your fleshing out this thought.
I’d be happy to, JustSayNoToNannies.
The entire United States is the collective psychological property of all United States citizens. It’s about sovereignty where all the people recognize these united states as our property. It’s how nations are created.
This way, if an enemy attacks New York City, we recognize it as an attack against the entire property known as these united states and the citizens who occupy that land.
I'm guessing that Cato's well-developed treatise doesn't say one word about this sort of "property."
If you disagree with that notion, maybe you’d like to see the people on 5th Avenue raise an army and go get the attackers after 9-11, while everyone else ignores the attack.
The collective of a nation is defined as “belonging or relating to all the members of a group.”
I disagree with calling it "property," psychological or otherwise - but I approve of a sense of national unity. What has Paul said that makes you think he’d like to see the people on 5th Avenue raise an army and go get the attackers after 9-11, while everyone else ignores the attack?
I realize you wanted to play juvenile libertarian mind games
Ad hominems and pretensions to mind-reading - that's your idea of how to "raise the level of discussion"?
Your cowardly ad hominem sums up your position and your character.
Cowardly? Since I posted my comment on the thread, and didn't make it as a private reply, how exactly would you characterize that as cowardly? You read the comment. I knew you would read the comment.
And yet you didn't post it to me.
I'm quite frankly not impressed by you or in fear of your opinion of me.
<yawn>
Ad hominen? I don't think so. Your position is unsubstantiated with respect to legalization being a conservative value - it is not, I state yet again. The ONLY reason for wanting legalization of dangerous recreational drugs is so that they can be used.
Obviously wrong - here are several reasons I posted in this thread:
Since you have so ardently taken the position you have, I can only assume you are drug addled. Cowardly? Not even in the slightest.
On another note, since you earlier brought it up, the issue of a "token" war on drugs being nonsense in your view - I give you Korea, Vietnam, and now the War on Terror. All three were and have been token wars.
I ask for the third time: How much more than the current tens of billions of taxpayer dollars every year would you like to spend on a real War On Drugs?
Now, do me a favor, and go choke on your meth pipe.
Of course it is - just like opposition to alcohol Prohibition was a conservative idea. Drug criminalization, like Prohibition before it, is "progressive" social engineering that has succeeded only in enriching criminals.
I state, emphatically, having been a conservative for the past 34 years, and after having read a great deal of books written by a great many conservative leaders, LEGALIZATION OF DRUGS IS NOT A CONSERVATIVE VALUE.
What did those books say about the conservatism of opposing Prohibition? About utopian social engineering such as attempting to eradicate through government force the millenia-old pursuit of altered mental states? About the law of unintended consequences, as illustrated by drug criminalization's inflating drug profits and channeling them into criminal hands?
Yeah, that's the ticket...
Everybody must get stoned to be a good conservative.
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.