If Huckabee drops...would you vote for Ron Paul

If Huckabee drops...would you vote for Ron Paul?

  • Total voters
    87
How about one of Franklin's many well know quotes:

" To see with the eyes of faith, close the eyes of reason"

I'm paraphrasing, but I interpret that as a bit anti religion.


On another note to those anti Paul people:

"It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." Samuel Adams
 
Ron Paul to me comes across as a babbling idiot. He has a few maybe even just a couple of good ideas. At this point I am just hoping Romney doesn't get the nomination. I would like to see Ron Paul as a VP though.
 
Ron Paul to me comes across as a babbling idiot
Click to expand...
I wouldn't go that far...I would say more like a senile ol' curmudgeon. :p

I would never want to see him as leader of this nation but I would love to see whoever gets elected take him on behind the scenes as a type of "Jiminy Cricket" character. :)
 
Actually it was a bunch of reformists who often wrote in private papers of there religious doubts and recognized the need for religion to stay out of politics.

Just for the record, in the days of the founders, everyone claimed religion, even though it was common to find private writings that stated otherwise. It was something that was expected and you could not really stray from it without losing power.
Click to expand...

Thats backpedaling. Without starting a separate debate about church and state, its safe to say that they were religious enough to invoke god in just about everything they did.


Actually, many of the people that were responsible for founding the US were simply NON-RELIGOUS; Thomas Jefferson being only one example. He wrote "I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition [Christianity] one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded upon fables and mythologies". This was the primary reason they argued AGAINST a state religion, and FOR individual religous freedom.
Click to expand...

The writings of a single man doesn't "many" make. An overwhelming majority of people back then were religious. This includes the framers.
 
The writings of a single man doesn't "many" make. An overwhelming majority of people back then were religious. This includes the framers.
Click to expand...
Once again ignoring historical context. Before Columbus many claimed to believe the earth was flat, even though writings from the time show that was clearly known to be false, simply because the church said so and they were expected to support the church regardless of the facts.
 
Personally, I'm voting for whoever is running against Hilbama. The worst thing that could happen to this country is for Hilbama to get elected and the Dems keep control of Congress - there would be nothing to slow their expensive legislation.

I sure hope the Ron Paul folks don't waste their vote as that raises the odds of Hilbama in the white house and a supreme court that could wreak havoc on us for years to come. Years ago I wasted my vote when I voted for Ross Perot as I was mad they're weren't better candidates - I will not do that again...
 
The worst thing that could happen to this country is for Hilbama to get elected and the Dems keep control of Congress
Click to expand...
Ahhh...but there lies the rub. Americans tend to like balance so they vote the opposite of who is in power for congress.

In some ways I think McCain in the White House and even greater control of congress in the hands of the far left would be worse than Hillary in the White house and a better balanced congress.
 
• "I have examined all the known superstitions of the word, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Short, 1801.


• "What you should say to outsiders is that a Christian has neither more nor less rights in our Association than an atheist. When our platform becomes too narrow for people of all creeds and of no creeds, I myself shall not stand upon it." - Susan B. Anthony.

• "... Religion is all bunk..." - Thomas Alva Edison.

"I have never seen the slightest scientific proof of the religious theories of heaven and hell, of future life for individuals, or of a personal God." - Thomas Alva Edison.
 
It just chills me to the bone when I think of the judicial appointments Hilbama would make. Sure, they may only get 1 term, but the damage they could do to the judicial system would be with us for decades.

Folks need to remember that Presidents serve a fixed term - the justices they appoint serve for life. Most of us are hoping that DC vs Heller improves our situation - we wouldn't have any hope of that with a liberal court which is what we'll wind up with...
 
Nobody is forcing you to use it.
Besides, he wouldn't legalize it, he would just make the feds follow the constitution. The states would then have the choice to make it illegal or not.
 
i wouldn't vote for paul...legalizing meth and pcp is a little extreme
Click to expand...
Then call me an extremist. I believe what you put in your own body is your own business as long as you are willing to suffer the consequences.

Plus, making such things taboo makes them more appealing to kids and making them an "underground" substance makes it easier for kids to get them. If you are willing to sell something illegally you probably will not care who you sell it to either.

In my home town it is easier for teens to get pot than it is cigarettes.
 
Then call me an extremist. I believe what you put in your own body is your own business as long as you are willing to suffer the consequences.

Ditto, I would even go furthur, the god you worship and the way you worship said god is your own business, who you would sleep with or marry is your own business, when you choose to end your life is your own business, etc. My only concern with what you do is that you do not intiate force against another in the process of following your bliss.
 
The writings of a single man doesn't "many" make.
Click to expand...

There are PLENTY of similar quotes, from "Founding Fathers" as diverse as Thomas Paine ("I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of...Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all."), John Adams ("This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!", and "...the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion."), James Madison (the principal author of the Constitution; "Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise", and "During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."), and so on, and so on.
 
I don't have a problem with amending the constitution. Here is a wicki tidbit-
The authors of the Constitution were clearly aware that changes would be necessary from time to time if the Constitution was to endure and cope with the effects of the anticipated growth of the nation. However, they were also conscious that such change should not be easy, lest it permit ill-conceived and hastily passed amendments. Balancing this, they also wanted to ensure that an overly rigid requirement of unanimity would not block action desired by the vast majority of the population. Their solution was to devise a dual process by which the Constitution could be altered. ..........Over 10,000 Constitutional amendments have been introduced in Congress since 1789; in a typical Congressional year in the last several decades, between 100 and 200 are offered. Most of these concepts never get out of Congressional committee, and far fewer get proposed by the Congress for ratification. Backers of some amendments have attempted the alternative, and thus-far never-utilized, method mentioned in Article Five. In two instances—reapportionment in the 1960s and a balanced federal budget during the 1970s and 1980s—these attempts have come within just two state legislative "applications" of triggering that alternative method.

Of the thirty-three amendments that have been proposed by Congress, six have failed ratification by the required three-quarters of the state legislatures—and four of those six are still technically pending before state lawmakers (see Coleman v. Miller). Starting with the 18th Amendment, each proposed amendment (except for the 19th Amendment and for the still-pending Child Labor Amendment of 1924) has specified a deadline for passage.

From the looks of it in order for the constitution to be amended requires the support of a large majority of the people so I am not real worried about Huckabees ramblings on that, what has worried me is his belief in deficit spending our way out of our problems the same thing that worries me about McCain and Romney. Additionally I worry about McCain and Romneys' commitment to the 2nd. If Ron Paul dropped out I would most likely vote for Huck in the primary because he seems to have a clear idea what the 2nd is for. In the general it would depend on who the Libertarian candidate was since I have traditionally voted Libertarian.
 
Personally, I'm voting for whoever is running against Hilbama. The worst thing that could happen to this country is for Hilbama to get elected and the Dems keep control of Congress - there would be nothing to slow their expensive legislation.
Click to expand...

In 1992, Bill Clinton was elected, and he had a Dem Congress. By the time he left, annual government spending had grown by almost $400 billion.

In 2000, George Bush was elected, and he had a Repub Congress. By the time he leaves, annual government spending will have grown by over $1.1 trillion.

That's approaching TRIPLE the growth in government which we saw under the last Clinton.

Before we count on the Republicans to slow the growth in government, we need to find some Republicans who are clear on the concept that the brakes are on the left and the accelerator is on the right.
 
In 2000, George Bush was elected, and he had a Repub Congress. By the time he leaves, annual government spending will have grown by over $1.1 trillion.
Click to expand...

But thats not a fair comparison. In order for this to be fair, you need to eliminate the spending on the war as well as the changes that were made in national security post 9/11.
 
But thats not a fair comparison. In order for this to be fair, you need to eliminate the spending on the war as well as the changes that were made in national security post 9/11.
Click to expand...
Huh? Weren't we told the war would not cost the taxpayers any money??? Don't tell me we were lied to again. :confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top