Bill O'Reilly Poll - Who do you want to run for president on the Republican side?

BillOReilly.com ^ | January 30, 2015

[SoConPubbie]

Who do you want to run for president on the Republican side?

Poll is on middle of page right-hand side.

[Forward the Light Brigade]

Romney will be Walker’s Sec of State. Ted will be his VP, He will finish Walker’s Revitalization program and Tap Romney as his VP. Bolton will be his Sec. of State. sarah Palin will head homeland security. Trump will build the wall between Mexico and the USA. It will become the 8th Wonder of the World.

[trebb]

Voted Cruz - too bad they are using the “teaser” ploy and won’t let us see the results until the poll closes.

[lucky american]

We have 2 computers, 3 tablets and 3 phones. Vote 8 times.

[House Atreides]

Added my vote for Ted Cruz.

[Nuc 1.1]

;D)

[itsahoot]

Harry Truman was VP when FDR died.

[xzins]

See the clarification I made at post #22.

I mentioned BOTH Greg Gutfeld and Juan Williams. When I finished my short comment on Gutfeld, lousy writer that I am, I did not put WILLIAMS name in the text to show I had switched to writing about Williams. I caught the mistake pretty quickly, and that’s why I was able to clarify it at post #22 only a minute or so later.

I do not think Gutfeld is a liberal in the classic sense. SoConPubbie is right about libertarian. Many young commentators on Fox tend in the libertarian direction, at least on homosexuality, amnesty, and drug use.

If the libertarians had their way there wouldn’t be any national boundaries at all. (Although I’ll bet they don’t object to zoning laws keeping trailers off vacant lots in their own neighborhoods.)

[alstewartfan]

What recommends Martinez other than the sex and ethnicity? She is untested, and I remember that she caved and set up Obamakill exchanges. Bob

[ConservingFreedom]

Many young commentators on Fox tend in the libertarian direction, at least on homosexuality, amnesty, and drug use.

I've never heard a libertarian speak in favor of drug use - only the right of adults to make that decision for themselves.

[xzins]

Same difference in my mind, but I can see a difference if pressed.

[ConservingFreedom]

Of course you can - one can favor the legality of tobacco without favoring tobacco use. Heck, I think people look stupid chewing gum and are better off avoiding it ... but you won't catch me calling for government involvement.

[xzins]

My experience is that those arguing for a thing have an interest in that thing. As you say, it’s not always so, but I only want government involvement in things that truly threaten a culture or that impose a dramatic change upon a culture before a vote is taken, such as abortion or same sex marriage. People should not be forced to accept unhelpful changes if they are unwelcome changes.

[ConservingFreedom]

I only want government involvement in things that truly threaten a culture

Marijuana no more threatens our culture than does alcohol.

People should not be forced to accept unhelpful changes

Legalizing a non-rights-violating activity doesn't force anything on anyone - and helps by cutting into criminal profits.

[xzins]

The argument can be made that abortion does not threaten a culture. That it is only an individual choice.

I almost wish we could conduct experiments, Culture A without abortion and Culture A with abortion, and then observe the differences over time.

I do believe they would be different.

I can think of differences that are reasonable to expect once fertility is controlled. I would predict a lessening in the valuation placed upon marriage. I would see a callousness develop toward human life.

Those off the top of my head. Can you see any more?

[JSDude1]

I agree with most of what you’ve stated, but I’m only using the term for context, not derision!

[ConservingFreedom]

Since abortion is the deliberate taking of an innocent human life, I've never bothered to consider any other arguments against it (nor would I ever offer any such other arguments in public, for fear of diluting that prime objection).

[xzins]

I’m not looking for arguments against abortion. As you say, life needs no additional argument.

I’m looking for how culture A without abortion would be different from culture A with abortion.

It’s similar to arguing for zoning in and around an elementary school. How would a strip club or an adult bookstore in the same block be potentially problematic. What arguments would be raised in objection to those stores?

So with abortion, how would the addition of abortion change that culture?

[xzins]

By the way, CF, these are not trick questions. They’re truly things I’m reflecting on. It’s like ‘how does adding this ingredient change the recipe?”

[ConservingFreedom]

The argument can be made that abortion does not threaten a culture.

Any culture would be better off without abortion or drugs (including alcohol). But for most cultures "without drugs" is not an option; even many despotisms have drug problems (Singapore's repressive regime appears to be an exception). The enrichment of criminals that is our War on Drugs' only undeniable accomplishment is certainly harmful to our culture.

[xzins]

You understand, then, my interest in cultural impact.

Let’s take that as a hypothesis: “police drug wars enrich criminals”.

Does that affect only the individual? Does the individual have a legitimate complaint if it ‘enriches criminals’ but an individual cannot take that to court because he’ll be told he has no standing since that particular individual has experience no provable harm?