Once Paul loses.

I won't vote for anyone but Ron Paul. And "once he loses" I fully expect the libertarian/constitutionalist movement to continue to grow in leaps and bounds due to the extreme discontent of the people with big government politicians and big government globalist policies. More than that I feel the national elections are a waste of time. The global elite who pretty much own and control both parties might as well appoint their people to the WH. It would all be the same as we've had for the last 40 years but without all the red white and blue hoopla and fanfare.

 

==Nobody or a third party. I no longer believe in voting for the lesser of two evils.

 

Given my pro-life position, I can't imagine any circumstance in which I would vote for Paul, aside from him being the only alternative to the Democrat. I can't see voting for someone who openly declares themself not to be pro-life for all of America. On this issue, there is little difference between him and Guliani, when you actually look at the facts. Neither believes that life is an American national value. Paul thinks that your right to life should depend on what state your are in when your mother decides whether or not to kill you.

 

Okay. Then vote for one of the many globalist candidates again like you have been who support the UN's population control agenda (global abortion and sterilization for the good of mankind and mother earth) measures by refusing to get us out of that vile un American intstitution.

 

Good answer, Poncho. At least you didn't try to defend Paul as being pro-life. That's at least a step in the right direction of people realizing that Paul really isn't all that pro-life, though he talks a good game. When you actually look at what Paul believes (according to what has been posted here), that's all he does.

I, for one, don't agree with the UN on anything. I think they should immediately be evicted from the US and we should withdraw.

 

If Paul doesn't get nominated, I pray Thompson does, Tancredo is another one I'll settle for.

I can't put anyone else in.

 

Ron Paul will have plenty of money to make it all the way through Super Duper Tuesday on February 5th when, unless something really weird happens, the GOP presidential nominee will be determined. Therefore, Paul is the only candidate during the GOP primiaries that I will support. I will vote in the February 5th GOP primary so after that I can't have any influence in the GOP anyway.

If Paul does not win the GOP nomination the only potential GOP presidential candidate that I would possibly vote for in the general election is Fred Thompson. Otherwise, I will vote for whomever wins the Libertarian Party presidential nomination.

The only way I might possibly vote for the Democratic presidential nominee(whomever it might be) is if Huckabee wins the GOP nomination or is picked as the GOP nominee's running mate and Arkansas was a competitive state in the general election. Since I know Huckabee's record in Arkansas so well I see him as more dangerous to the future of freedom in these United States than any of the potential Democratic Party presidential candidates.

For the record, Ron Paul is as much pro-life as anybody posting in this forum. Anyone who says otherwise is either ignorant, deceived, or lying, in my opinion.

 

This is pure nonsense, Ken, and you know it. A man who will allow states to decide whether or not to murder the unborn is not pro-life. It is not a state decision. It is a matter of national morality and should be decided at that level. You are simply letting your bias get in the way.

For futher evidence of that, see the nonsensical statement that you would vote for a Dem over a ticket with Huckabee on it. There is no rational way to argue that. I am not even a Huckabee supporter, but to say that he is more dangerous than any of the Dems is beyond the pale. I don't think you actually believe that. I don't know why you would say it.

But way to launch a personal attack, calling me ignorant or deceptive, or deceived. That comes out very easily when you can't actually answer the charges. It's disappointing. This board deserves better than that.

So tell us why someone who is truly pro life will let states decide whether or not it is permissable to murder people.

 

1) Until Roe v. Wade the federal government never had a national policy on abortion. Therefore, according to your reasoning, this nation has never, ever, been pro-life since before Roe v. Wade the issue had always been decided on the state level.

2) Actually, I do believe that. And I don't like your personal attack of saying that I am lying about what I believe. It's disappointing. This board deserves better than that. You may not approve of my voting stategery but that's just tough for you.

3) Because I would like to see as many abortions stopped as possible by going back to the way abortion was handled before Roe v. Wade(when there were a lot less abortions than there are today) than to do nothing waiting on the pipe dream of passing a human life constitutional amendment, which surely you understand will not become a part of the U.S. constitution for the foreseeable future, if ever.

 

Martin I agree ! I never have felt like voting for the lesser of two evils was the right thing to do (although I have) in the past.
For me NEVER AGAIN will I do so .If Ron Paul isn't the candidate,then I will not vote,I have come to the conclusion that any vote for the lesser of two evils is victory for evil.So I just won't do it!
God help America,when will we realize that our nation is being stolen from us,or should I say has been stolen from us and its time to take America back.
My prayer is that the eyes of christians will be opened,as well as their ears,and that they will allow the Holy Spirit to reveal to them the time in which we are living.

 

:godisgood:Amen to that.

 

Allowing states to abort children is not pro life and neither is Ron Paul.

 

Refusing to support giving the states the option of outlawing abortion is not pro-life and neither
is 2 Timothy2:1-4.

 

Timothy,
I am sure that you are good judge of a persons intentions,but I fail to see how you can be certain that Ron Paul is not pro life,he didn't make the law,nor can he change by his own desire.
In order to have freedom and liberty ,we also have to be free to sin (or make mistakes) and then be accountable to GOD for our actions.
Its will be nessessary to change the law a little at a time,Yes?
Maybe one state at a time?Or one heart at a time?
The others who have said they were prolife haven't taken any action,so how about giving someone with a record of keeping his word a try?

 

Which is completely irrelevant. Why should we allow states to decide that it is okay to murder certain people?

I didn't make a personal attack. I assumed that there is no way that you would believe that. Sorry I overestimated you. I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.

The idea that any Democrat is better than Huckabee is totally unsupportable.

So you won't vote for the lesser of two evils, but you will approach abortion with a lesser of two evils? Surely you can see that that makees no sense. The right thing to do is protect all of life at a federal level. Your yourself used to argue that a president could simply sign an executive order and end abortion all at once, didn't you?

Going back to pre Roe would not stop "as many abortions as possible." It would stop more than is being stopped now. But to stop as many as possible, we need a president who believes that life is a national issue, not a state one. Paul is not that man.

 

So you think Ron Paul is perfect? If you don't, then you will be voting for the lesser of two evils, even if you vote for Ron Paul.

 

1) I have voted for the lesser of two evils in the past and I may do so in the future.

2) So you have a problem with the federalist system that our Founding Fathers established? You know that a human life constitutional amendment is the only way to achieve that and surely you understand that it is a pipe dream. And while we are waiting on your pipe dream you won't support the one idea that could make a major dent in the number of abortions in these United States. That's pitiful.

 

In some cases, yes. I am surprised that you don't.

No it's not. The Congress could pass a law banning abortions with a provision that the courts could not review it.

Probably not.

What? This makes no support. I would very much support the overturning of Roe. In fact, that is one reason why I insist that failing to vote for a Republican is irresponsible. Only Republicans might appoint justices who will overturn Roe. The Democrats will most certainly not appoint those justices. So we are left with a possibility vs. a certainty. I will vote for the certainty everytime. As I have often said, were it not for judicial appointments, I don't think it would make much difference who was president. But judicial appointments are important, and any vote that would give twenty to thirty years to a liberal SCOTUS is both irresponsible and unpatriotic. (And yes, I not only question the patriotism of those who would appoint liberal justices. I deny that they have any.)

 

So unless one agrees with you about justices then he is unpatriotic? That's just a sick position, man, to hold. Really sick.

It is arrogance such as that that causes me to hope that the Republican Party is crushed at the polls in November 2008.