Ron Paul's Bringing Home the Bacon

Do you remember that list I made for you? Add Petra O-IX. I will say one thing for you, you are consistant.

 

Yes, the one that was incorrect, since only two names on it were people who regularly misrepresented me?

Why? that was a list you made of people who supposedly misrepresented me. Not a list of people whose position I did not understand. If you were to make a list of people whose position I do not understand, then Petra would go on that list.

Unless you are thinking of another list you made that I have forgotten about or do not know about.

I try to be. I also try to spell it right ... It is consistent.

But on a serious note, I don't know why you are making this about me. Petra says something I don't understand, so I have asked him to clarify. He refused, so that's fine. That is far different than someone knowingly misrepresenting my position which has been clearly stated.

 

It seems you have debated most everyone about every Republican candidate. Which one will you support in the Michigan primary? I assume you aren't voting Democratic. Then again, we can count on Michigan to cast its electoral votes in the blue column.

 

I don't think I have debated that much about every candidate. I have said very little about Tancredo, or Guiliani, or Thompson, or Huckabee or any of hte others. Most of my comments were about Romney and whether or not a man of character can change his mind from a wrong position to a right one, and about Paul. I think that there is not clear thinking on some of these candidates and various issues.

As for who I will support, no one. I make it my habit as a pastor to stay out of politics other than with very close friends. The gospel is my calling and I don't want Jesus tied in any way to my political views.

As for who I will vote for, I am not sure. I am not really comfortable with any of them. They all have strengths and they all have weaknesses, some more glaring than others.

Michigan will probably be blue on the strength of SE Michigan, but not because of me. The outstate is almost all Republican, but Detroit is almost all Democratic. Of course, the Democratic party in Michigan will lose half their delegates due to the date of hte primary. The DNC is taking them away for moving the primary so early.

 

Im not sure I follow, why is this?

 

The Michigan Democratic party moved up the primary so they could play a bigger role in selecting the nominee. The DNC wants to reserve that for certain states. They have a party rule that only certain states can have primaries before Feb 5. So they stripped Michigan of their delegates to the national convention to try to force them to move the primary back. I thought it was half the delegates (as I said above). It is apparenlty all of them.

Several of the candidates have committed to not compaigning here in order to support the DNC and try to force Michigan to move the primary. I think that is utterly foolish.

There are lawsuits going on now to try to force the DNC to give the delegates back.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22054151/

 

Thanks, I had not heard about this. Interesting stuff.

 

Our primary is in May, which will be an exercise of futility. No doubt the nominees will be chosen long before that.

 

Yes, SN, that's one of the problems of the primary system is that certain states have a bigger role than others. And then some are completely irrelevant. That was why there was a big push this year for everyone to move forward. I am not sure it is good for the country to have Iowa and NH, with a disproportionately small population, making such a huge decision as they currently do.

At the risk of upsetting the federalists, I think a national primary day would be much wiser. Or perhaps regional primaries. But a national primary with perhaps a second runoff between the top two vote getters would make sense to me.

 

I think this would be a better idea as well to allow more people to have a voice in the primaries. No way does Iowa and NH speak for the entire nation.

 

4 or 5 regional primaries over 4-5 months would be a great idea.

 

So Paul is a RINO, I agree with that!

 

You have your terms somewhat confused. RINO's want bigger government. Libertarians want less government.

The Republican Party cannot without libertarians(also known as economic conservatives) as there are not enough social conservatives to win nationally.

If you want to see a great example of these two groups working in lockstep with each other, then examine the Reagan campaigns of 1980 and 1984 and the eight years of the Reagan presidency. I would like to see this happen again.

 

The part a Republican in name only. He isn't a Republican or a conservative.

 

How do you define being a "Republican"? I have a feeling that if only the people that you define as a Republican voted for Republicans that your party would never win another national election.

 

Are you asking are telling? You seem to have ask and answered with out my reply. However it isn't me running as a member of the GOP for an office and most know and you have said he is a libertarian. I'm just going on his past and what he has said, I don't believe I've said anything bad about him .

 

There are libertarians(small l) who support various political parties - mostly the Republican Party. There are Libertarians(capital L) who support the Libertarian Party. I am both a libertarian and a Libertarian. I will be voting in the Republican Party primary on February 5, 2008, (the Lord willing) because we have open primaries in Arkansas. The only restriction in Arkansas is that if one votes in a party's primary that he/she can't vote in another party's run-off(which off course is irrelevant to the presidential primary since there is no run-off).

 

I know your Ar. laws and rules well, lived in your state for a while. Voted for a Dem. turned Republican for governor, Frank White. Knew and did business with Knox Nelson former speaker of the House of Ar., I believe and a Democrat. I liked Frank but he just couldn't turn away from some old Democrat feeling, so as a friend of my said who had been a big backer of Frank the first time, said if we are going to have a Democrat lets have one who will say he is one, many with that feeling had a lot to do with Bill beating him the 2nd. time and the car tax or license deal was in the past then.

 

By Paul's view, and mine, an unconsitutional money grab is tantamount to theft. So, if you are truly against theft you wouldn't report stolen property to try and reclaim as much of it as possible? The fact that Paul is trying to bring money back to a district doesn't mean he ever approved of it leaving in the first place.