Right, but if he gets the nomination he won't be elected President. I don't think anyone would for the GOP - not with the uptick we're having. And again, i don't know if he's homophobic. He's had openly gay staff members who are still out there stumping for him. Most notably the face of the Comcast news Network.

As I've said, he's wrong, but that doesn't make him evil.

Some of us have jobs and can't be traipsing all over the internet. I come here during lulls. I've got 40 other sites I need to cram into the small spaces. I'm also aware of his problems. I'm asking again who you'd vote for that meets my criteria. Because let me tell you something, you let Romney get the nomination you might as well have voted for Warren G. Harding.

I doubt Ron knew who they were. They probably just wanted a pic with him.

He opposes the civil rights act because he feels it violates the constitution. He's not against the motives behind it and has stated that.

I'm not here to persuade anyone that a candidate of my choosing is any better than any other candidate, I'm simply pointing out the holes in your opinions and exposing the flawed reasoning behind them. If you "have a job" and are so busy, then perhaps you shouldn't be mouthing off about things you obviously haven't devoted much time or thought to.

As far as I'm concerned, despite the facts that Ron Paul would overturn Roe V Wade, is a religious fundie who says "through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view", thinks global warming is a "hoax", strictly opposes medicare and medicaid.... this little gem is the nail in the coffin to Ron Paul's un-electable craziness: http://graphics.thomsonreuters.com/1...icitation2.pdf

And here's a nice little site on just how much of a two-faced sack of crap Romney is, and how he will say anything to get into office: http://stopromneyspiousbaloney.com/

I'm just going to wager I know more about the current state of american politics than you do. If you want to put your mouth on the line, I'm happy to have a conversation in another thread if you'd like. I'm aware of the problems with all of the candidates. If Huntsman pulls out 20% or higher tonight, he'll get my vote, but speaking as someone who's been represented by Mitt Romney before, I'm not planning to see him take the nomination.

I don't know what you're here to do, but it seems like you're here to attack me because you think my vote for a Republican Candidate is "bad". I'm sorry you're offended but theres no reason to freak out because of my opinion.

I don't know why anyone is getting so bent out of shape over politics. It's pointless to get pissed over politics. Garbage human beings, who are only out for themselves are just the sort of people that human beings are led by. To think that it's possible to change that is naive. Embrace the futility of politics and just watch with detached amusement like I do.

I don't know why I bother arguing with you, it has played out the same way in the past as it is now

> I point out some logical inconsistency (calling Santorum the least dishonorable of the candidates) in your statements, back it up with evidence
> You fall back to generalized statements that don't address the particular objection at hand, usually resorting to comments that are thinly-veiled personal attacks ("I have a job", "I know more than you about politics"... seriously, of what use is it to say things like this?)

As for cavorting off to another thread, what's the point? Why can't you just do it here? Show me I'm wrong, and that Santorum is "not dishonorable" as you earlier claimed.

Well, my priorities are:

1) Stopping immigration (and deporting the illegals, obviously)
2) Economic Protectionism
3) Non-Interventionist Foreign Policy
4) Decreasing Federal Regulation

...and no candidate values #2, Paul works for #3, Bachmann was strongest for #1 and Gingrich has liberal views on this subject, all will do #4 to varying degrees but Gingrich is the only one who's actually done it substantially in the past....

Eh. A Bachmann/Paul ticket was my dream. Hunstman/Paul wouldn't be a bad ticket.

Erm, consider your source. Of course a site which links tries to paint the push for Gay Marriage as an extension of the Civil Rights movement would call Santorum corrupt.

Anyways, allegations of corruption =/= corruption. He has not been found guilty of any of these charges.

So, you're for turning California, Texas, and half the rest of the country into a battle ground then?

Ignoring the site's agenda, if you look at the actual entity that published the report and the report itself, it becomes hard to discredit. And I don't think it's realistic to reject the tag of "corrupt" solely because someone hasn't actually been convicted of a crime; looking at the acts themselves should be enough.

:p:

I have a job wasn't an insult, its why I didn't read your link. I said "I know more about politics than you do" because you told me I didn't know what I was talking about. Which, for the record, is a pretty dickish statement on your part. You started this fight and now you're painting me as the jerk. I don't know why you can't act like an adult.

Also, I don't know how me finding him the most honorable candidate can be proven to be "illogical." Opinions aren't logical and I still stand by my statement. Maybe we see things differently, and I think thats fine, but to make a statement like "its illogical" is not only incorrect, its uncivilized and rude.

You said something to the effect of "I have a job I can't spend all my time on the internet" which insinuates that people like me, who can provide sources for their claims and evidence for their opinions, don't have jobs and spend all their time on the internet.

You said "I know more than you about politics", which may or may not be true, but is not relevant to the argument at hand. We are not having an argument over who knows more about politics, we are arguing over a very specific subject: the state of Rick Santorum's corruption as a politician.

Beliefs are not immune to scrutiny. That is a very important concept to understand. Your belief that Santorum is "honorable" is apparently based on a incomplete picture of his background, and his background is filled to the brim with scandal and dishonor.

I stated my position on Santorum, showing specific ways in which your initial opinion is wrong. You STILL HAVE YET to provide a counter-argument for why, despite my specific examples, Santorum is still "honorable". In light of that, it's probably best if we stop arguing about it now because it's going nowhere.

I think thats fair. Lets bury the hatchet. I love you RVCA. Enjoy the nudes I'm PMing to you.

Just so there are less hard feelings. I don't mean that backing your statements up means you're an unemployed economic drain, I meant "I literally cannot go look at the link because I'm squeezing in 40 sites before my boss walks by again."

umm, we're already deporting illegals:

LINK

...and there is no battleground.

I'm looking into this ATM LINK and it doesn't appear as though the organization behind the allegations is bipartisan.

Anyways, coincidentally earlier I was reading a neat article on the general topics of Liberalism & Govt. corruption:

link to brooks article

Alright, HHB, i know you think I'm a pussy, but hopefully I can say this sternly enough for you to take me seriously.

Why don't you just make points? Does everyone routinely have 15 webpages open?

Wrong. Ron Paul is a Libertarian, through and through. He may be wearing Republican's clothing right now, but he's still a Libertarian.

The most important thing about the Libertarian Party's stance on - pretty much everything - is that things should be carried forth with an absolute minimum of government control.

The actual government passing legislature that applies to the nation as a whole, even when meant as anti-discriminatory legislation, is always going to infringe on someone else's beliefs. Leaving social issues up to the states is, in his eyes, a much more fair way for the majority of a given area to receive proper representation on these issues.

Oh, and that was his son, Rand Paul, who said he was opposed to the Civil Rights movement. I'm sure, though, that Ron Paul would say the same thing regarding actual legislation passed as being a state issue, not a government issue; with those particular decisions, the politician's own personal feelings don't come into play, and I actually kind of like that...but at the same time, I don't have faith in people to be smart enough to vote for things which seem like common sense.

All this pro-Santorum talk is trolling, right...?

Right?

:laughing:

I guess some people do support him, or he'd not still be in the race. Personally, I'm probably still going to vote Obama, but I do like to really compare and contrast candidates to make a decision before I vote.

What I've gotten from the Republican debates, as far as candidates I am most likely to consider supporting:

Jon Huntsman > Ron Paul >>> Mitt Romney >> Newt Gingrich > Rick Perry > Rick Santorum.

But that's just me.

I think Hunstman is the only one that I'd seriously consider voting for, because Ron Paul trying to adapt a Libertarian platform to a Republican-friendly one is just grating.

But RVCA, it's HIS opinion. That's what he believes. You believe differently on what you've read and decided is fact whereas Big3 knows different from experience. Please stop picking a fight or take it to PM please.

Dr. Paul finished second tonight! As for the racist thing, I think Paul feels that a man should have the freedom to be racist, but if that man takes action and harms another man, then it becomes a problem.

Second place finish in NH is huge. You already knew Romney was going to take 1st, it's HIS state... NH was a race for second from the start. Top-tier finishes in both Iowa and NH for Ron Paul are a huge victory. South Carolina will be the real test.

As for your take on the race thing, I get what you're saying, but I don't like the way you put it. I agree, that while racism is morally wrong, the government should have zero role in trying to enforce diversity and integration. Letting those things happen on their own is the only way we'll ever achieve true harmony as a society. In that aspect I agree with Dr. Paul, as I do about 90% of the time.

I actually do agree with RVCA in one sense: The whole purpose of a debate is to debate differing arguments. If someone believes differently from you, when you talk about it, that is debating.

Now, bringing semantics and whatnot into it seems like cheap shots, but different people debate in different ways.

But put downs are unnecessary and against the rules. That is where the line must be drawn in debating.

Put downs? Can you point me to where I used "put downs"?

Why don't you like the way I put it?:laughing: I too think that racism is morally wrong. But if someone wants to be racist, that's their choice.

You just make it sound like it's no big deal to be racist. When in fact, it is. But that's a social matter, not a federal one.

Sorry for entering the conversation late but you do realize that Paul's version of libertarianism means that if you are gay or pro-choice or believe in separation of church and state and happen to live in a state or county or province that allows gay rights and abortion then everything's cool BUT that the flipside is that if you live in a state or county where they don't then .. you're fucked?

And of course this includes people who are too young to vote. Under this guy's rule I'd feel very sorry for a gay person or a woman of any age with an unwanted pregnancy (especially underage pregnant women) who happen to live in a pro-life, anti-gay state. That is, most of them.

And it costs a lot to move cross country.
I can't vote for that kind of leadership.

Well it's very ignorant to be racist. If you're racist and you don't verbally or physically harm anyone who you are prejudiced against, then I don't think it is a big deal. In a way it is, but you're entitled to believe what you want. And as long as you don't exercise those beliefs in a harmful manner, then Its not that big of a deal, in my opinion. You're only harming yourself with your own ignorance. Unfortunately most racist people usually will exercise that racism in a harmful way.

Id vote Paul if I was gay. Your chance of having legal gay marriage is best with him. He doesn't think the government should even be involved in marriage. The rest of the candidates are set on the idea that marriage is a "sacred relationship between man and woman". Santorum and Romney and Gingrich think there should be a constitutional amendment that says marriage should be strictly between man and woman. It's laughable that candidates who claim to advocate "small government" and "less regulation" want to intrude on the private lives of American citizens and regulate whom they can and can't marry.

Interesting thing to note: Norma McCorvey, better known as "Jane Roe", actually supports Ron Paul.

I don't think so.
I think the vast majority of racists will never outwardly do anything but that they'll only stew in their own hateful juices.
Otherwise I agree with you that people are allowed to feel however they want to feel about anything as long as it stays in their own possibly twisted minds. But that's okay because we all should be allowed to hate (and love) whoever for whatever personal reasons as long as nobody is harmed.
Let's punish crimes, not thoughts.
No thought police.

True but only in states that have legalized it. How many is that?

I guess I was thinking more along the lines of the Nazis and the KKK. I guess the racists who exercise their beliefs in a harmful way are the ones who really stand out.

To be fair, it's already like that. I'm personally gay, and gay marriage is not legal in my state. I believe that was voted on in 2000 or 2004 - can't remember. The point being, it was before I was allowed to vote anyway.

Gay marriage also isn't legal across either of the state lines within twenty minutes of me (Ohio and West Virginia), and I really doubt that in my state, it's going to change anytime soon. Ohio, though - I remain optimistic. It's a better shot than West Virginia and Kentucky, anyway.

With that said, which of these candidates would be better viewed in my eyes, in terms of what they're offering to the LGBT populace? Mitt Romney, who awkwardly stammered through a claim that he supports gay rights, but not gay marriage because marriage is between a man and woman...but he thinks they should have any rights but those? Or Newt Gingrich, Mr. Mashed-Potatoes-in-a-Suit himself, who has himself been married three times, yet opposes gay marriage - and even gay couples' rights to adopt?

Even the current President is leaving it up to the states, although he at least repealed that heinous DADT policy, and did something for the gay community.

I don't believe that there's anyone offering the gay community anything better, so I'd say that candidates who are willing to just leave things as they are seem infinitely more appealing than candidates who want to strip rights away.

I really don't think that gay rights are as important in this election because, again, it's either taking them away, or leaving them as is. Not much to gain.

6? You're right but he gives more of a chance than the others and that's my main point.

Yes, but those are probably the minority of racists. My point is that I don't care about racism except for that of lawbreaking ones. I believe that the KKK and 'Nazis' should be put out of business when they actually break laws and/or hurt someone. I don't give a fuck what those people, or any other racists, think in private.

Exactly how I feel about it.

To be fair, it's not. Obama upholds federal rule over that of states (or tries to) as dictated by the Constitution. That is to say that he does not want a gay or pregnant kid in Bumfuck, Wherever to be beholden to the laws of that particular bumfuck town. I mean try to have an abortion in a major city like Salt Lake City under Paul and see what happens. A non-libertarian administration would at least have a chance of allowing it. Paul would say "go ahead and prohibit it, it's your right as a state/local government." Bring that down to the city or county level and it's even worse. The ACLU and those like them would have zero power.

Again, not as long as the ass-backwards local governments have more power than the US Constitution which is upheld by the federal gov't when they feel like upholding it. Paul's Fed would give up all rights of all people to the trust of their local governments. And if you know America then you know how dangerous small town government can be.

Exactly. All of this is what drives me nuts about libertarians. They talk big about personal freedom, something which I'd be inclined to agree with them on, except in practice it's not what they stand for at all. Taking power away from the federal government and handing it to local governments (and corporations) doesn't do a blessed thing for individual liberties. In fact, as this country's past and present civil rights struggles clearly demonstrate, it's often detrimental to them.