Who will you vote to nominate for the republican side?

Spider-Bite

Superhero
Joined
Jan 16, 2006
Messages
7,988
Reaction score
0
Points
31
Just curious here. I personally think it's close to over for Rudy. Too many stories of corruption have come out. I think Huckabee has it, or possibly Romney, and I don't think either one of them can win the general election. Too many Christains will not vote for a mormon according to polls, and that is the republican base. Huckabee isn't centered enough, and his past statements about quarantining gays to fight AIDS will not fly well with middle of the road voters.

I think the republican's chances of winning in 08 came and went with Rudy.
 
Mike Huckabee's got the momentum going, though John McCain is building up steam in New Hampshire. I think it's a three way race between Huckabee, McCain, and Romney. Not being a Republican, though, I can't say who will win for sure, or who deserves it-- if any of them do.
 
Giulliani or McCain would be fine with me. For goodness sake, no more religious nuts in the white house!
 
Fred Thompson will almost certainly get my vote for the Republican candidacy. I would be more excited about his campaign, though, if only he would at least appear excited about it.

I have a feeling, though, that by election time, I'll end up voting against the Democratic candidate rather than for a Republican candidate.

It will be a repeat of 2000 and 2004. :csad:
 
bruce_willis_01.gif
 
Fred Thompson will almost certainly get my vote for the Republican candidacy. I would be more excited about his campaign, though, if only he would at least appear excited about it.

I have a feeling, though, that by election time, I'll end up voting against the Democratic candidate rather than for a Republican candidate.

It will be a repeat of 2000 and 2004. :csad:

Fred is too far to the right, and the reason he is not excited aobut his campaign is because it's practically dead. He is not a contender.
 
Mike Huckabee's got the momentum going, though John McCain is building up steam in New Hampshire. I think it's a three way race between Huckabee, McCain, and Romney. Not being a Republican, though, I can't say who will win for sure, or who deserves it-- if any of them do.

Huckabee's momentum is ending.

I like Romney's chances a lot. He seems perfectly placed in all the key states. If he wins Iowa, he will take New Hampshire, South Carolina and Michigan leaving him open to dominate Super Duper Tuesday.

I am voting Ron Paul out of protest however. I disagree with a bit of his policies, and he uses every opportunity to state his beliefs to some how make himself look foolish to the nation. Regardless I want the Republican party to become a party of small government and not one of Christian morals.
 
I'm a full Ron Paul supporter. His beliefs are more in line with mine.

I'd be fine with Giuliani, McCain, or Huckabee though. But I'm absolutely opposed to Romney (a Republican John Kerry IMO), Hunter, and Thompson.
 
I am shocked you want a former Baptist Minister as President.
 
I am shocked you want a former Baptist Minister as President.

I'm not rooting for him like I would for Paul, but there's just something about Huckabee that comes off.....nice or something like that.

Plus I looked him up a bit and I wouldn't mind him in the White House. Sure there are people who I'd like more, but I'd be content with Huckabee.
 
Eearlier I got Paul and Huckabee mixed up. It was Ron Paul who wanted the nation's homo sexuals to be quarantined, and not Huckabee.
 
No, that was Huckabee who wanted AIDS patients quarantined... under MY advice, of course.
 
No, that was Huckabee who wanted AIDS patients quarantined... under MY advice, of course.

I'm pretty sure Ron Paul said quarantine gays. He didn't specifically say quarantine people with aids or HIV he just said quarantine all gays as a way to fight the spread of the virus.

I think that middle of the road voters will find that mean, unless he gives some very sincere apology saying that like much of the country he was wrong on gays at that time.

I'm actually shocked that Hippie would support Ron Paul, because I know on many issues he is a libetarian, and Ron Paul is not. One of the founders of the libetariain party was Abraham Lincoln, and Ron Paul honest to god disagrees with Lincoln's decision to fight the civil war and abolish slavery.

For all we know Ron Paul could end up being worse than Bush, despite the fact that Ron is against the Iraq war. How an anti-Iraq war republican could win the nomination or even the general eludes just about everybody. Even if he wont the nomination there is no way the base on the right would support him.
 
I'm pretty sure Ron Paul said quarantine gays. He didn't specifically say quarantine people with aids or HIV he just said quarantine all gays as a way to fight the spread of the virus.

I think that middle of the road voters will find that mean, unless he gives some very sincere apology saying that like much of the country he was wrong on gays at that time.

I'm actually shocked that Hippie would support Ron Paul, because I know on many issues he is a libetarian, and Ron Paul is not. One of the founders of the libetariain party was Abraham Lincoln, and Ron Paul honest to god disagrees with Lincoln's decision to fight the civil war and abolish slavery.

For all we know Ron Paul could end up being worse than Bush, despite the fact that Ron is against the Iraq war. How an anti-Iraq war republican could win the nomination or even the general eludes just about everybody. Even if he wont the nomination there is no way the base on the right would support him.

Ron Paul IS a Libertarian. Thats his entire schtick. Disagreeing with a decision of Lincoln in no ways disqualifies his Libertarian status.

Also - Ron Paul has no problems with Gays. Do a simple Google search before making such an outrageous claim.
 
Ron Paul IS a Libertarian. Thats his entire schtick. Disagreeing with a decision of Lincoln in no ways disqualifies his Libertarian status.

Also - Ron Paul has no problems with Gays. Do a simple Google search before making such an outrageous claim.

How is forcing a person to live in slavery a libertarian position? Shouldn't a libertarian believe that the would be slave should have control over their own life?

The truth is that Abraham Lincoln is quite possibly the best president we ever had. And criticizing his biggest accomplishment while running for president has got to be a symptom of stupidity, as that would not fly well with voters and any presidential hopeful with common sense would know better.

Also Ron Paul opposes all hate crime legislation and voted to ban gay adoptions in Washington DC. He is also opposed to ending the don't ask, don't tell policy in the military. The only reason he voted against a consitutional ammendmant to ban gay marriage is becuase he thinks the govenrment shouldn't have anything to do with marriage in any form. He doesn't even support marriage liscenses or marriage tax benefits. On the marriage issue he is libetarian, even though I disagree with him. I think marriage in both forms should be promoted, because I think family values are very healthy for society.
 
How is forcing a person to live in slavery a libertarian position? Shouldn't a libertarian believe that the would be slave should have control over their own life?

The truth is that Abraham Lincoln is quite possibly the best president we ever had. And criticizing his biggest accomplishment while running for president has got to be a symptom of stupidity, as that would not fly well with voters and any presidential hopeful with common sense would know better.

You could also make the argument that slaves were not recognized as people at that current time and thus the freedom argument was not that of slavery/freedom - but the governments role in taking "property" away from Southern white males. Its not pretty - but its valid. The plan of the government buying and then releasing the slaves is actually quite interesting. The government should of had some sort of finacial payback to the plantation workers that lost their labor.

Lincoln may of been the greatest President - and I am not going to argue that making such a comment isn't stupid. It is totally stupid. His position is not stupid, but it sounds horrible in a 30 second soun bite. Its a bad political move.

Also Ron Paul opposes all hate crime legislation and voted to ban gay adoptions in Washington DC. He is also opposed to ending the don't ask, don't tell policy in the military. The only reason he voted against a consitutional ammendmant to ban gay marriage is becuase he thinks the govenrment shouldn't have anything to do with marriage in any form. He doesn't even support marriage liscenses or marriage tax benefits. On the marriage issue he is libetarian, even though I disagree with him. I think marriage in both forms should be promoted, because I think family values are very healthy for society.

Thats all a very, very far stretch from "wanting to quarantine gays to control the virus" crap you were spouting.

Paul believes the Government should have as little role in people lives as possible - gay or straight isn't that important to him.

“We dont get our rights because we are “gay or women or minorities”, we get our rights as indiviuals”
 
I'm pretty sure Ron Paul said quarantine gays. He didn't specifically say quarantine people with aids or HIV he just said quarantine all gays as a way to fight the spread of the virus.

I think that middle of the road voters will find that mean, unless he gives some very sincere apology saying that like much of the country he was wrong on gays at that time.

I'm actually shocked that Hippie would support Ron Paul, because I know on many issues he is a libetarian, and Ron Paul is not. One of the founders of the libetariain party was Abraham Lincoln, and Ron Paul honest to god disagrees with Lincoln's decision to fight the civil war and abolish slavery.

For all we know Ron Paul could end up being worse than Bush, despite the fact that Ron is against the Iraq war. How an anti-Iraq war republican could win the nomination or even the general eludes just about everybody. Even if he wont the nomination there is no way the base on the right would support him.

1. That was Mike Huckabee that said to quarantee the AIDS people, not Ron Paul.

2. Lincoln was never a member of the Libertarian Party. The Libertarian Party was founded in 1971, over 100 years AFTER Lincoln died. Lincoln was a member of the Whig Party and was one of the early members of the Republican Party.

3. Lincoln was opposed to abolishing slavery. He never fought the Civil War to free the slave, he fought it to preserve the Union.

Also Ron Paul opposes all hate crime legislation
Here's what Dr. Paul had to say about it:

Last week, the House of Representatives acted with disdain for the Constitution and individual liberty by passing HR 1592, a bill creating new federal programs to combat so-called “hate crimes.” The legislation defines a hate crime as an act of violence committed against an individual because of the victim’s race, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. Federal hate crime laws violate the Tenth Amendment’s limitations on federal power. Hate crime laws may also violate the First Amendment guaranteed freedom of speech and religion by criminalizing speech federal bureaucrats define as “hateful.”

There is no evidence that local governments are failing to apprehend and prosecute criminals motivated by prejudice, in comparison to the apprehension and conviction rates of other crimes. Therefore, new hate crime laws will not significantly reduce crime. Instead of increasing the effectiveness of law enforcement, hate crime laws undermine equal justice under the law by requiring law enforcement and judicial system officers to give priority to investigating and prosecuting hate crimes. Of course, all decent people should condemn criminal acts motivated by prejudice. But why should an assault victim be treated by the legal system as a second-class citizen because his assailant was motivated by greed instead of hate?

HR 1592, like all hate crime laws, imposes a longer sentence on a criminal motivated by hate than on someone who commits the same crime with a different motivation. Increasing sentences because of motivation goes beyond criminalizing acts; it makes it a crime to think certain thoughts. Criminalizing even the vilest hateful thoughts--as opposed to willful criminal acts--is inconsistent with a free society.

HR 1592 could lead to federal censorship of religious or political speech on the grounds that the speech incites hate. Hate crime laws have been used to silence free speech and even the free exercise of religion. For example, a Pennsylvania hate crime law has been used to prosecute peaceful religious demonstrators on the grounds that their public Bible readings could incite violence. One of HR 1592’s supporters admitted that this legislation could allow the government to silence a preacher if one of the preacher’s parishioners commits a hate crime. More evidence that hate crime laws lead to censorship came recently when one member of Congress suggested that the Federal Communications Commission ban hate speech from the airwaves.

Hate crime laws not only violate the First Amendment, they also violate the Tenth Amendment. Under the United States Constitution, there are only three federal crimes: piracy, treason, and counterfeiting. All other criminal matters are left to the individual states. Any federal legislation dealing with criminal matters not related to these three issues usurps state authority over criminal law and takes a step toward turning the states into mere administrative units of the federal government.

Because federal hate crime laws criminalize thoughts, they are incompatible with a free society. Fortunately, President Bush has pledged to veto HR 1592. Of course, I would vote to uphold the president’s veto.

So basically he voted against something that he views is against the Constitution (the federal government overstepping its boundaries), is discriminatory (people who commit a crime because of their beliefs is apparently worse than a person who does the same thing for some other reason), and is against what a free society stands for (everyone is entitled to their own opinion, even if it is disgusting in our eyes).

Spider-Bite said:
and voted to ban gay adoptions in Washington DC.
Again, something that is twisted against Dr. Paul. He didn't vote against gay adoptions, he voted against federal funding for them. He would have done the same if it were a straight adoption. Dr. Paul tends to oppose funding for the vast majority of programs that aren't mentioned in the Constitution.
 
Hate Crime = Thought Crime. How can you prove what someone was thinking when they commited any offense? A Crime is a crime.
 
McCain's the only national Republican I've ever voted for.
 
Ron Paul has my support, he's the only one that makes any sense to me.
 
AHAHAHA, quarantine gays.

44% voted for Paul. If only the rest of America would get on board.
 
Wait a second...Paul wants to quarentine gays? Did I read that right? He, like, wants to round up all the gay people in this country and force them into one single area?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"