Mitt Romney

[kevinmiller]

Well then you can't vote in Republican primaries and there aren't really any good democrats to vote for anymore in the primaries. There are still quite a few good repubs though. :D

[IM4given]

[quote="kevinmiller"]
Well then you can't vote in Republican primaries and there aren't really any good democrats to vote for anymore in the primaries. There are still quite a few good repubs though. :D
[/quote]

I am wondering if the Lord will even allow us another election year?

[bibletotingunslinger]

[quote="IM4given"]
I am wondering if the Lord will even allow us another election year?
[/quote]

Have you paid for a funeral plan? I did, in truth I hope it was a waste.

[Samer]

I'll vote for the best candidate. I don't know much about this Romney guy, although I assume at least he'd be halfway decent on most moral issues. My state's very conservative, lost Catholic senator, Sam Brownback, just announced he will be running. Although they are no longer enforcing 100% pro-life, no exceptions, upon all their candidates, I will also see if the Constitution Party fields anyone for '08. If they do, he will probably get my vote.

[kevinmiller]

Go for Brownback Samer! :D

[Samer]

Ron Paul! :Green

[IM4given]

Ron Paul! :Green

me too - btw - I am now an offically registered Republican!

[kevinmiller]

Wow, you're voting for Paul, Janet? I never would've guessed. :frog

[John81]

Wow' date=' you're voting for Paul, Janet? I never would've guessed. :frog[/quote']

It's just one surprise after another with Janet, isn't it? :Green

[Psalms18_28]

I liked paul Ron myself. Liked him from the beginning. Just don't want Rudy to win the primary and votes that spread out gives him a chance to make it. Sometimes I wish we could vote who we DON't want. and if more people voted that they don't want Rudy than those who do, that would put rudy out.

[IM4given]

Do you know that I absolutely CRINGE everytime I hear this man's name? I do not know HOW IN THE WORLD Giulinai can even imagine himself to be a front-runner in this election! If he gets the nomination we will all know that SATAN has truly taken control!

[IM4given]

I liked paul Ron myself. Liked him from the beginning. Just don't want Rudy to win the primiary and votes that spread out give him a chance to make it. Sometimes I wish we could vote who we DON't want. and if more people voted that they don't want Rudy in the election than those who do' date=' would put rudy out.[/quote']

Ron Paul is gaining in support - there are far more people voting for him than the media would have you to believe - he draws HUGE crowds everywhere he goes - and no they are the same few groupies following him around the country either! :lol:

[IM4given]

The reason I will not vote for Mitt Romney under NO circumstances has nothing to do with his RELIGION, but with his flip-flopping pandering "platform":

Gun Control

Mitt Romney:

Well, let's get the record straight. First of all, there's no question that I support Second Amendment rights, but I also support an assault weapon ban...

Ron Paul:

...cities with strict gun control--like Washington DC--experience higher rates of murder and violent crime. It is no coincidence that violent crime flourishes in the nation's capital, where the individual's right to defend himself has been most severely curtailed.

Gun control historically serves as a gateway to tyranny. Tyrants from Hitler to Mao to Stalin have sought to disarm their own citizens, for the simple reason that unarmed people are easier to control. Our Founders, having just expelled the British army, knew that the right to bear arms serves as the guardian of every other right.

Abortion

Mitt Romney:

When I ran, I -- for the very first time, I told you that I was personally pro-life but that I would protect a woman's right to choose as the law existed. And that stayed the same until until two years ago, as I indicated, and at that time, as a result of the debate we had, the conclusion I reached was that we had gone too far...

Ron Paul:

I strongly believe that a fetus is a human life... Our focus should be on overturning Roe and getting the federal government completely out of the business of regulating state matters. All abortion foes must understand that the real battle should be fought at the state level, where grassroots respect for life can influence state legislatures.

Education

Mitt Romney

I've taken a position where, once upon a time, I said I wanted to eliminate the Department of Education. That was my position when I ran for Senate in 1994. [Now]... I see that the Department of Education can actually make a difference. So I supported No Child Left Behind. I still do.

Ron Paul

Increasing parental control of education is superior to funneling more federal tax dollars, followed by greater federal control, into the schools.... So I don't think that the Republican position ought to be more bureaucracy. I mean, why did we double the size of the Department of Education?

Health Care

Mitt Romney:

I proposed that everyone [in Massachusetts] must either purchase a [health insurance] product of their choice or demonstrate that they can pay for their own health care. It's a personal responsibility principle. Some of my libertarian friends balk at what looks like an individual mandate.

The big question we faced, however, was where the money for the subsidy would come from. We didn't want higher taxes; but we did have about $1 billion already in the system through a long-established uninsured-care fund that partially reimburses hospitals for free care. The fund is raised through an annual assessment on insurance providers and hospitals, plus contributions from the state and federal governments.

Ron Paul:

For decades, the U.S. healthcare system was the envy of the entire world. Not coincidentally, there was far less government involvement in medicine during this time.... The lesson is clear: when government and other third parties get involved, health care costs spiral.

The problems with our health care system are not the result of too little government intervention, but rather too much. Contrary to the claims of many advocates of increased government regulation of health care, rising costs and red tape do not represent market failure. Rather, they represent the failure of government policies that have destroyed the health care market.

[HappyChristian]

I do not vote for men who are openly homosexual or who support homosexual life styles.

Just a question for you - how do you square this with Ron Paul's statement (when asked about his stand on "gay marriage") that he is "supportive of all voluntary institutions and people can call it whatever they want." (July 13, 2007 Google interview)

[IM4given]

Eliminate Federal Court Jurisdiction

by Rep. Ron Paul, MD

The President?s recent announcement that he supports a constitutional amendment defining marriage has intensified the gay marriage debate. It seems sad that we need government to define and regulate our most basic institutions.

Marriage is first and foremost a religious matter, not a government matter. Government is not moral and cannot make us moral. Law should reflect moral standards, of course, but morality comes from religion, from philosophy, from societal standards, from families, and from responsible individuals. We make a mistake when we look to government for moral leadership.

Marriage and divorce laws have always been crafted by states. In an ideal world, state governments enforce marriage contracts and settle divorces, but otherwise stay out of marriage. The federal government, granted only limited, enumerated powers in the Constitution, has no role whatsoever.

However, many Americans understandably fear that if gay marriage is legalized in one state, all other states will be forced to accept such marriages. They argue that the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution essentially federalizes the issue; hence a constitutional amendment is necessary.

But the Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996, explicitly authorizes states to refuse to recognize gay marriages performed in other states. Furthermore, the Supreme Court repeatedly has interpreted the Full Faith and Credit clause to allow Congress to limit the effect of state laws on other states. In fact, federal courts almost universally apply the clause only to state court judgments, not statutes. So a constitutional amendment is not necessary to address the issue of gay marriage, and will only drive yet another nail into the coffin of federalism. If we turn regulation of even domestic family relations over to the federal government, presumably anything can be federalized.

The choices are not limited to either banning gay marriage at the federal level, or giving up and accepting it as inevitable. A far better approach, rarely discussed, is for Congress to exercise its existing constitutional power to limit the jurisdiction of federal courts. Congress could statutorily remove whole issues like gay marriage from the federal judiciary, striking a blow against judicial tyranny and restoring some degree of states? rights. We seem to have forgotten that the Supreme Court is supreme only over lower federal courts; it is not supreme over the other branches of government. The judiciary is co-equal under our federal system, but too often it serves as an unelected, unaccountable legislature.

It is great comedy to hear the secular, pro-gay left, so hostile to states? rights in virtually every instance, suddenly discover the tyranny of centralized government. The newly minted protectors of local rule find themselves demanding: ?Why should Washington dictate marriage standards for Massachusetts and California? Let the people of those states decide for themselves.? This is precisely the argument conservatives and libertarians have been making for decades! Why should Washington dictate education, abortion, environment, and labor rules to the states? The American people hold widely diverse views on virtually all political matters, and the Founders wanted the various state governments to most accurately reflect those views. This is the significance of the 10th Amendment, which the left in particular has abused for decades.

Social problems cannot be solved by constitutional amendments or government edicts. Nationalizing marriage laws will only grant more power over our lives to the federal government, even if for supposedly conservative ends. Throughout the 20th century, the relentless federalization of state law served the interests of the cultural left, and we should not kid ourselves that the same practice now can save freedom and morality. True conservatives and libertarians should understand that the solution to our moral and cultural decline does not lie in a strong centralized government.

March 2, 2004