Republican candidates for 2012

• fish82

  

  I Wear Pants;1040105 wrote:http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4784905
  
  That's the transcript. It was on an interview of his promoting his book in 2006.
  
  The full quote is:
  "One of the criticisms I make is to what I refer to as more of a libertarianish right. You know, the left has gone so far left and the right in some respects has gone so far right that they touch each other. They come around in the circle. This whole idea of personal autonomy, well I don’t think most conservatives hold that point of view. Some do. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues. You know, people should do whatever they want. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world and I think most conservatives understand that individuals can’t go it alone. That there is no such society that I am aware of, where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture."
  
  He thinks we have too much freedom.

  Or at least he did six years ago.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  fish82;1040170 wrote:Or at least he did six years ago.

  Yeah, I'm sure he's changed. LOL.
• fish82

  

  Cleveland Buck;1040174 wrote:Yeah, I'm sure he's changed. LOL.

  Maybe, maybe not. I assume Dr. Ron has changed from his positions back in the 80's huh?
• Cleveland Buck

  

  fish82;1040180 wrote:Maybe, maybe not. I assume Dr. Ron has changed from his positions back in the 80's huh?

  Only on the death penalty. He lost faith in the federal judicial system to determine if someone should live or die, though he doesn't see the authority for the federal government to stop states from doing it.
  
  Not on any other issue though. If you listen to his stump speeches from his 1988 Libertarian run for president he complains about the income tax, the Federal Reserve printing the money and monetizing our out of control deficit spending, policing the world, giving foreign aid to the Soviet Union. It is the same speech he gives now.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  “I will go to the NAACP convention, and explain to the African-American community why they should demand paychecks instead of food stamps." - Newt Gingrich
  
  "I don't want to make black people's lives better by giving them money. I want to make their lives better by giving them the opportunity to earn money. - Rick Santorum
  
  They smeared Ron Paul for weeks about articles he didn't even write, so I wonder when the media will cover these comments that came straight from the candidate's mouths.
• fish82

  

  Cleveland Buck;1040191 wrote:“I will go to the NAACP convention, and explain to the African-American community why they should demand paychecks instead of food stamps." - Newt Gingrich
  
  "I don't want to make black people's lives better by giving them money. I want to make their lives better by giving them the opportunity to earn money. - Rick Santorum
  
  They smeared Ron Paul for weeks about articles he didn't even write, so I wonder when the media will cover these comments that came straight from the candidate's mouths.

  And yet he let his name be put on them. Interesting.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  fish82;1040200 wrote:And yet he let his name be put on them. Interesting.

  He should have read them first, but he didn't. He was practicing medicine and out of politics. Meanwhile your boys actually are racist but their comments get no scrutiny. Luckily, the companies that own the media approve of Newt and Frothy, so they don't have to worry about that.
• fish82

  

  Cleveland Buck;1040211 wrote:He should have read them first, but he didn't. He was practicing medicine and out of politics.

  Golly....ya think? Also interesting is the fact that he refuses/is unable to name the "ghost authors" of said articles. In any case, to not proofread a newsletter bearing your name is pretty fucking stupid, is it not?
  

  Cleveland Buck;1040211 wrote:Meanwhile your boys actually are racist but their comments get no scrutiny. Luckily, the companies that own the media approve of Newt and Frothy, so they don't have to worry about that.

  LOL...calm down, sparky. You're wavering on tinfoil territory again. Do you really think either of those statements is remotely racist? Guys like you are why I keep my support of Paul on the QT...you fit the "whackjob Paul supporter" stereotype to a tee. Best to preserve my sterling reputation and not be lumped in with you people.
• I Wear Pants

  fish82;1040235 wrote:Golly....ya think? Also interesting is the fact that he refuses/is unable to name the "ghost authors" of said articles. In any case, to not proofread a newsletter bearing your name is pretty fucking stupid, is it not?
  
  
  
  LOL...calm down, sparky. You're wavering on tinfoil territory again. Do you really think either of those statements is remotely racist? Guys like you are why I keep my support of Paul on the QT...you fit the "whackjob Paul supporter" stereotype to a tee. Best to preserve my sterling reputation and not be lumped in with you people.

  WHAAAAAAAATTTTT?
  
  But on the Paul newsletters thing, he's said that he didn't read them but has also said he takes full responsibility for it since he let his name be put on it. That to me shows character not a lack of it.
• Y-Town Steelhound

  

  The Republican party has to realize at some point that Ron Paul is the only chance they have at taking back the white house. If they think that Romney, or Santorum, or Perry has a chance to even come close to beating Obama they're truly crazy.
• believer

  

  I Wear Pants;1040268 wrote:But on the Paul newsletters thing, he's said that he didn't read them but has also said he takes full responsibility for it since he let his name be put on it. That to me shows character not a lack of it.

  Uh huh...I have a hunch that had Romney, or Gingrich, or Santorum, or Bush, etc. had done the same thing you and your leftist pals and all the Paulists would be having a field day. "I don't believe it." "The dude knew exactly what he was signing." "The man's a racist." "What kind of an idiot signs published newletters and didn't even read the contents?....riiiiiight" blah blah
  
  But sweet, politically innocent Dr. Paul on the other hand, now there's a man with character. :rolleyes:
• HitsRus

  

  Uh huh...I have a hunch that had Romney, or Gingrich, or Santorum, or Bush, etc. had done the same thing you and your leftist pals and all the Paulists would be having a field day. "I don't believe it." "The dude knew exactly what he was signing." "The man's a racist." "What kind of an idiot signs published newletters and didn't even read the contents?....riiiiiight" blah blah
  

  Thinking the same thing.:laugh:
• I Wear Pants

  believer;1040335 wrote:Uh huh...I have a hunch that had Romney, or Gingrich, or Santorum, or Bush, etc. had done the same thing you and your leftist pals and all the Paulists would be having a field day. "I don't believe it." "The dude knew exactly what he was signing." "The man's a racist." "What kind of an idiot signs published newletters and didn't even read the contents?....riiiiiight" blah blah
  
  But sweet, politically innocent Dr. Paul on the other hand, now there's a man with character. :rolleyes:

  No. It's amusing how much you fight against Paul, almost as much as you do against Obama. Even though Paul is far more different then Obama than any of the candidates you support.
  
  http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-04-23-santorum-excerpt_x.htm
  
  Seriously, read that and tell me the idea of him being president doesn't scare the shit out of you.
  
  And Bachmann and Santorum have both signed pledges indicating that they would seek to ban same sex marriage and also pornography as president.
  
  http://news.yahoo.com/santorum-joins-bachmann-pledges-ban-porn-same-sex-214900881.html
  
  Neither has came out and said "that was a mistake" either.
• majorspark

  

  Believer like myself has stated that we will likely vote for Paul in our respective state primaries. We do not like the racist crap being thrown at Paul any more than the religious bigot crap being thrown at Santorum. You people act like Santorum wants to set up some kind of national religious theocracy. Get a grip.
• I Wear Pants

  majorspark;1040644 wrote:Believer like myself has stated that we will likely vote for Paul in our respective state primaries. We do not like the racist crap being thrown at Paul any more than the religious bigot crap being thrown at Santorum. You people act like Santorum wants to set up some kind of national religious theocracy. Get a grip.

  Where have I said that? I've said nothing except for what he has. He wants to ban same-sex marriage, pornography, feels that we don't and shouldn't have a right to privacy. These are all things he's said.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  majorspark;1040644 wrote:Believer like myself has stated that we will likely vote for Paul in our respective state primaries. We do not like the racist crap being thrown at Paul any more than the religious bigot crap being thrown at Santorum. You people act like Santorum wants to set up some kind of national religious theocracy. Get a grip.

  Santorum's religious beliefs are not my concern. His belief that the federal government has the authority to legislate morality and that individual liberty should be sacrificed for his idea of the greater good is disgusting. His big spending record is disgusting. His blood lust for Muslims worldwide is disgusting. His record of corruption and lobbyist payoffs is disgusting. As a presidential candidate, he is disgusting. That is the issue with me. Not his personal opinion of gay marriage or abortion or what have you. His record of tyranny and Wilsonian progressivism.
• I Wear Pants

  majorspark;1040644 wrote:Believer like myself has stated that we will likely vote for Paul in our respective state primaries. We do not like the racist crap being thrown at Paul any more than the religious bigot crap being thrown at Santorum. You people act like Santorum wants to set up some kind of national religious theocracy. Get a grip.

  Where have I said that? I've said nothing except for what he has. He wants to ban same-sex marriage, pornography, feels that we don't and shouldn't have a right to privacy. These are all things he's said.
  
  He also makes it clear that he has no problem with gay people. Except that they should never have sex.
  
  "have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts. As I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships. And that includes a variety of different acts, not just homosexual. I have nothing, absolutely nothing against anyone who's homosexual. If that's their orientation, then I accept that. And I have no problem with someone who has other orientations. The question is, do you act upon those orientations? So it's not the person, it's the person's actions. And you have to separate the person from their actions. "
  
  I mean fucking hell.
• I Wear Pants

  " Under his Iran policy, Santorum explained, the United States would "fund the pro-democracy movement, use covert activities to disrupt" Iran's nuclear program, and work more openly with Israel to warn Iran. "You either open up those facilities . . . or we will degrade those facilities through airstrikes and make it very public that we are doing that," Santorum told Gregory. "The president has done none of those.""
  
  http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/envoy/rick-santorum-foreign-policy-combative-hawk-according-bono-132121994.html
  
  And that's from an article trying to make him look good.
• majorspark

  

  I Wear Pants;1040778 wrote:"The president has done none of those".

  If Santorum says the president has not acted covertly in Iran he is grossly ignorant or lying. Multiple sparsely placed buildings at nuclear sites just don't blow up on there own.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  That does make him look good to some people. There are a lot of voters over age 45 that won't be sent to fight these wars but have eaten up the government re-education they received in school and get every day in the media. They hate them some Muslims and the chickenhawks are their political heroes.
• majorspark

  

  I Wear Pants;1040667 wrote:Where have I said that? I've said nothing except for what he has. He wants to ban same-sex marriage, pornography, feels that we don't and shouldn't have a right to privacy. These are all things he'said.

  What federal policies is he advocating to ban these things?
  

  I Wear Pants;1040667 wrote:He also makes it clear that he has no problem with gay people. Except that they should never have sex.

  I council my kids and others that they should not have sex outside of marriage. Does this disqualify me from governing?
• majorspark

  

  Cleveland Buck;1040785 wrote:That does make him look good to some people. There are a lot of voters over age 45 that won't be sent to fight these wars but have eaten up the government re-education they received in school and get every day in the media. They hate them some Muslims and the chickenhawks are their political heroes.

  This chickenhawk deal is so foolhardy. Argue military force on its merits and constitutionality. Period. You have no idea how much you empower the bravehawks with this line of thought. If someone like McCain were to become president you would have just neutered yourself. Hitler was no slouch on the battlefield and he used it.
• I Wear Pants

  majorspark;1040789 wrote:What federal policies is he advocating to ban these things?
  
  
  
  I council my kids and others that they should not have sex outside of marriage. Does this disqualify me from governing?

  He signed a pact with Bachmann that stated he would ban same-sex marriage and pornography as president.
• majorspark

  

  I Wear Pants;1040798 wrote:He signed a pact with Bachmann that stated he would ban same-sex marriage and pornography as president.

  How is he proposing to use the federal govenment to ban these things? And if Bachman is involved we know it must be something bad.
• I Wear Pants

  majorspark;1040801 wrote:How is he proposing to use the federal govenment to ban these things? And if Bachman is involved we know it must be something bad.

  http://www.scribd.com/doc/59632577/THE-MARRIAGE-VOW-document
  
  There's the document they signed.