Pat Endorses Who?

Parent Cafe
61

<p>Evangelical voters will NOT compromise on abortion. Evangelical voters will NOT compromise on homosexual marriage. If Guiliani wins the nomination there will be a 3rd party or evangelical voters will stay at home.</p>

<p>Evangelical voters will NOT compromise on abortion becuase they believe it is a black and white issue. In their opinion on one side there is God and life, and the other side is death. If you really think that (which most of Gods Warriors-Christian Edition do) you won’t vote for Crookiani.</p>

62

<p>“Evangelical voters will NOT compromise on abortion becuase they believe it is a black and white issue. In their opinion on one side there is God and life, and the other side is death. If you really think that (which most of Gods Warriors-Christian Edition do) you won’t vote for Crookiani.”</p>

<p>I really don’t think you can speak for an entire group of people. Are you an EC?</p>

63

<p>gottaloveucla said:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>OK–Then Pat R has done what many have wanted by supporting Rudy. He has helped maginalize the “Evangelical voters” if that is a voting bloc of lock-step people. </p>

<p>They are now left with little role other than trying to be a spoiler chanting “we are relevant.” But, even if they are “successful” in that role, their political/moral agenda will not be controlling regardless of which more centralist candidate wins. There simply aren’t enough “Evangelical voters” to do anything but “spoil.”</p>

<p>Now if we could get some help marginalizing the very far left (if there is any that still remains), the non-polarized vast majority of citizens could get on with life without all the venom of politics when used as a battleground to impose religious beliefs.</p>

<p>Once again: Thank you, thank you Pat!</p>

<p>zoosermom said:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Of course, that is the very good point. One person or small faction cannot be allowed to speak for this nation or for a whole major political party. And apparently, Pat saw that to be the case and has tried to get a more centralist Rep candidate.</p>

64

<p>I dont consider myself an evangelical Christian. I am a Christian, but I think parts of Leviticus and Deuteronomy are definitely not the literal word of God (and if they are, that’s not a God I want to follow). Therefore by extrapolation I think the whole thing, especially the New Testament, is a great source of moral instruction that has a few internal contradictions and bad advice mixed in.</p>

<p>I won’t compromise on abortion. Anyone in favor of Roe v Wade will never receive my vote. I dont care about the gay marriage issue. I usually tune out when that’s being discussed. Im ok with the current policy, and I’d be ok if it were legalized in all 50 states. I dont really want to see a constitutional amendment, because I like the fact that we have 220 year old document with so very few alterations, and all of them (except for possibly 16 and definitely 18) absolutely necessary. But I wouldnt ever throw my support behind a candidate or remove it from them over that issue.</p>

65

<p>O7Dad: the imposition of beliefs by the would-be ayahtollahs is one of the two reasons I’ve become an implacable partisan. Unfortunately, the first “hits” did a lot of damage that need to be rolled back, the Offense always has the advantage over the Defense.</p>

<p>Some think that the GOP can save itself. I doubt it. The only paths to protection that I see viable are electoral marginalization and destruction. The first of those is within reach by 2010. While it’s too early to call the presidential race now, I’ll put $1,000 on the Democrats making gains in both House and Senate in 2008. Not veto-proof but nice gains.</p>

66

<p>

</p>

<p>WOW! I agree completely! People get really shocked whenever I say this, but really, if we didn’t know that it was supposed to be from God, and just read those books, wow, we’d think it was a satanic instructional manual, complete with blood sacrifices, annihilation of innocent people, etc. Why anyone would want to spend eternity with such a wrathful, cruel being is beyond me!</p>

<p>Personally, I believe that God is a loving, merciful, compassionate, and just being. I don’t believe the bible is from God, but was written by humans. The words of Jesus aren’t even completely intact (much of it was written many years after his death, and they didn’t have tape recorders back then, so is it really verbatum accurate?), but enough of the gist of his message remains to give us plenty of guidance on how to live our lives, if we want to follow his message. Jesus was awesome, and his message was all about LOVE and PEACE and FORGIVENESS and lack of judgment (complete opposite of the old testament) but unfortunately those who call themselves ‘Christian’ but are in favor of war, are essentially living in the old testament instead of following Jesus’ teachings. I don’t believe one must believe that the bible is the infallible word of God to be spiritual or to follow Jesus, the Living Spirit.</p>

<hr>

<p>Re: the abortion issue. I understand your stance on this, but I invite you to consider that many candidates have given lip service to the abortion issue to get the votes of the Christians, but really aren’t pro-life. For example the present occupant of the white house - claimed to be pro-life, but he obviously doesn’t care about those innocent Iraqi babies. I was torn on this issue during the last 2 elections, and when I read that abortion rates actually go down during Democrat administrations, and up during Republican administrations (due to welfare cuts) I realized that it’s not a clearcut issue. Republican administrations have actually correlated with INCREASED abortions! Then, added to that the issues of war, and the environment, both of which kill untold 1000s of innocent children, the issue gets quite complicated. Therefore I ended up voting for the candidate whom I thought would have the biggest net effect on life in general. Still, I was not entirely comfortable. Never had I found a candidate that I could agree with on ALL the major issues…until now.</p>

<p>I love the fact that Ron Paul is unapologetically PRO-LIFE, and CONSISTENT, because he respects ALL life, including those of the little children in foreign countries, and the innocent civilians the warmongers are so quick to disregard, and the soldiers on both sides. Yet, I know many pro-choicers who support him! Isn’t that amazing! They support him because they consider the war issue and the liberties issue to be paramount. Also, Ron Paul’s intention to turn the abortion issue over to the local level (while reversing Roe) may be the closest to an agreement that both sides can live with, that we’ll ever have, at least until the day when it can be scientifically proven that yes it’s a BABY and there is no longer any dispute.</p>

<p>And on the gay issue, Ron Paul is so nonchalant and reasonable about it…he makes it clear that marriage is a religious thing and should be up to the religions…but civil arrangements would be a legal thing and no one should be denied that right - they should be able to have a civil union with whomever they want. So he’s really offering gays full rights, while allowing the churches to have the final say on the religious aspect. If a gay couple wants to have a religious ceremony and consider themselves united in that way, and they find a church willing to do that, that is between them and their church. So there is no reason to get all worked up about it. </p>

<p>I think the whole gay marriage issue is a major distraction, perpetrated by corrupt leaders of the churches (note I am NOT saying that ALL church leaders are corrupt! just some) who want to get people distracted away from LOVE and down a path of JUDGMENT. It’s really a witch hunt! Jesus would be appalled!</p>

<p>Hey did anyone see that interview with Ron Paul by some guy named Lofton - he kept trying pin him down and get him to say something really hateful and judgmental but RP just took the high road…it was awesome!</p>

67

<p>Yeah, I know Bush is a Christian-exploiter, but his nomination of Roberts and Alito was still a lot better than letting kerry nominate 2 Roe v Wade supporters.</p>

68

<p>Ron Paul also wants to withdraw from international organizations such as the United Nations. No matter how much of a fiscal conservative you can claim to be, how many “poor innocent civilians” do you think will be better off by the United States withdrawing funds from humanitarian agencies? Do you think “moral statements” wagging a finger at the Sudanese in Darfur is going to do the Fur people any good?</p>

<p>By the by, unless depreciation of the dollar occurs, how do you expect the U.S. to survive under a free trade environment? </p>

<p>I have a litany of other issues about Ron Paul, but won’t bother mentioning it because of poor experience debating Paul-ites. (Most of the time, when I try to have some semblance of a coherent conversation, I get replies consisting of standard campaign rhetoric, nothing outside the box.)</p>

<p>As someone who considers himself religious, but not evangelical, I don’t think the Christian faith is as clear-cut on government regulation of abortion as people think it may be. While it is CERTAINLY clear that it is religiously immoral to commit an act of abortion, I personally do not believe that it is in the province of the government to make such a judgment or decision. My opinion of choice follows closely with Fr. Drinan’s (Democratic Rep. from Massachusetts, only Jesuit in Congress, recently passed away), who I think articulated the position best.</p>

69

<p>I’m sorry to hear that you had a bad experience with RP supporters.</p>

<p>I do not claim to be conversant enough on all the issues to be able to debate them with you.</p>

<p>What I do know is that no issue is so clearcut. They all have multiple angles to be considered. Just as you brought up a potential negative effect of withdrawing from the UN, so too could negative effects be pointed out by staying in it.</p>

<p>The bottom line for me is that RP is the only candidate I know of who has consistently walked his talk. He refused the lucrative Congressional pension. He has been consistent on his voting record. He has never voted on issues based on pressure from big corporations. He is the people’s candidate. All the other candidates (except Kucinich) pretty much sound alike; they say what they are advised to say, in order to appeal to their base. Ron Paul is different. He has integrity. He has courage. He is not afraid to speak out and say what he believes to be the truth, instead of what they want him to say. His explanations always have the ring of truth and the voice of reason. I feel fully confident that he will be capable of addressing those ‘other angles’ of these very complex issues, as they arise. It’s not always possible to have an answer for every possible contingency, but if we have a leader with integrity, I’m certain that his values will prevail. Unlike bush, who claimed to have values but they were nothing more than mere platitudes.</p>

<p>Also, and here is a big factor: RP is the only major candidate who is not a member of the CFR.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Actually, Ron Paul would agree with you. His stance is that the purpose of the govt is to protect liberties, so the default would be to protect the liberty and right to life of each human. Any exceptions to that, if any, due to extreme circumstances, would not be for the govt to decide but should be at the local level. This sounds reasonable to me.</p>

70

<p>Thank you for bringing up the CFR. It astonishes and amazes me that so many big name politicians would join an organization that has testified to congress that it wants to merge us with mexico and Canada.</p>

<p>Gravel isnt a CFR member either, but unfortunately, nobody pays attention to him.</p>

71

<p>It astonishes and amazes me that so many people don’t even know about the CFR.</p>

<p>I don’t know much about Gravel.</p>

72

<p>Gravel has some radical socialist stances I cant get behind, but I was eating it up when he called out Obama and Clinton in the first democratic debate for their unethical fund raising tactics, and their alliance with special interests.</p>

73

<p>Lealdragon: Thank you, though I’m not fluent in all issues, either. I’m coherent enough in areas of foreign policy where I can generate some substantive debate; unfortunately, there are others who think they can step up to the plate when they are grossly unprepared.</p>

<p>Having said that, there is no so-called superhighway between Mexico, the U.S., and Canada, nor are there proposals created by ANY think tank, including CFR, which proposes a merger between the three countries. Unless you’re of the ilk who pulls out tin foil hats to brush off the coming alien invasion, anyone who’s done their research would know that the CFR merely proposed a broadening of horizons, not a merger between three sovereign states. </p>

<p>And yes, I’ve done my research. I can dust off the old files and bring up the research, or you can just read the CFR reports for yourself. Having to respond to a number of people who’ve called in on this matter, I cringe every time someone brings it up. It’s a non-issue, just like the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, which the U.S. follows but has not ratified for a couple of minor reasons.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>That’s not what I believe. I believe the decision is left to the individual, and if an individual decides to take a step that is not pro-life, she should not be punished for it, at any level – local, state, or federal. When I say government, I mean government in all its forms, whether it’s the City Council of Bobsville, the State of Podunk, or the nation.</p>

<p>As for integrity and all of that, I’m a little cynical. I think I follow in the footsteps of Colonel Jessep when it comes to politicians and such words:

</p>

<p>Replace code and loyalty with integrity and truth, and there you have it. Politicians and their supporters, Ron Paul included (though he’s not as bad as the others), use it as a punchline.</p>

74

<p>Tlaktan, the CFR has studied the possibility of the superhighway. I’m from texas and I know all too well about it. Our governor is the one championing it, and he’s so disliked over it that he won re-election with less than 40% despite being a Republican in one of the most conservative districts in the country. Read up on it:</p>

<p>[The</a> NAFTA Superhighway](<a href=“http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst103006.htm]The”>http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst103006.htm)</p>

75

<p>Vyse: I’m already aware of it. I also notice you linked me to a Ron Paul website, clearly an unbiased source for a Press Release. I can also say affirmatively that such a thing has never been conceived within the halls of Congress, and any legislation that is brought up trying to implement it will die with a whimper. I think Wikipedia even gives a clear, relatively unbiased opinion of this. Mr. Goode, Mr. Paul, and others who think the U.S. is trying to create some sort of Superhighway exposed to several security vulnerabilities should take their tinfoil hats off and start thinking like the rest of the world. An op-ed piece by Ron Paul isn’t very factual, for the record.</p>

76

<p>“I won’t compromise on abortion. Anyone in favor of Roe v Wade will never receive my vote.”</p>

<p>Vyse, Since you support right to life so completely, let me ask you - </p>

<p>How many orphans have you adopted?</p>

77

<p>Pharm, are you against murder in back alleys? How many times a week do you hang out in back alleys, waiting to save someone?</p>

<p>Are you against heroin addiction? How many junkies have you taken under your wing and rehabilitated?</p>

78

<p>

</p>

<p>I hope you’re right! There are many who believe the worst, but I prefer not to be a defeatist and not focus on doom and gloom. It’s a matter of finding a balance between staying optimistic and not burying one’s head in the sand.</p>

<p>You probably know more about it than I do. Again, I hope you’re right.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I agree that most politicians toss around empty words (with bush being the worst of them). I find RP refreshingly different, with fewer platitudes and more substance, and an exemplary track record to back it up.</p>

<p>But that’s just my (admittedly subjective) impression of him. My brother told me he thought bush was ‘raised up by God’ to ‘save our country’ and when he saw him, he felt nothing but goodness exuding from him. Amazing! I would look at the guy and have a totally different impression.</p>

<p>So Ron Paul supporters should not assume that everyone will necessarily have the same impression as we do. The same is true of any of them. The fact that I may think RP is sincere and bush is not, is based on my own impressions and assessment. Someone else may conclude differently.</p>

79

<p>“We have allowed rampant secularism and occult, et cetera, to be broadcast on television. We have permitted somewhere in the neighborhood of 35 to 40 million unborn babies to be slaughtered in our society. We have a Court that has essentially stuck its finger in God’s eye and said, ‘We’re going to legislate you out of the schools, we’re going to take your Commandments from off the courthouse steps in various states, we’re not going to let little children read the Commandments of God, we’re not going to let the Bible be read – no prayer in our schools.’ We have insulted God at the highest levels of our government. And, then we say ‘why does this happen?’ Well, why its happening is that God Almighty is lifting His protection from us.”</p>

<p>Giuliani’s entire platform has been based on his role as the NYC mayor during September 11th. I can’t even listen to that man speak because every other sentence begins with “I remember September 11th…” or “Then I think about September 11th…” I have not been able to read this entire thread, but has he reacted to Robertson’s endorsement? I think they’re both slimy politicians first, and neither have much integrity, but I find this whole situation disgusting. Robertson just wants a Republican at any price, and put his stock in the front runner. If Giuliani had any real integrity or honor for the September 11th victims, he’d spit in Robertson’s face.</p>

80

<p>unregistered said:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>If that is a correct statistic since Row v. Wade, then “the people” (at least the pregnant females who opted for the procedure) have “voted” FOR the reproductive heath right to an abortion. </p>

<p>So, how many voters are actually willing to vote for a candidate solely on the basis of stopping women from having that right, IF their candidate would try to pack the Supreme Court sufficiently to overrule Roe v. Wade? 35 or 40 million? NOT!</p>

<p>We know that there is an existing mechanism that could do away with the right recognized in Roe v. Wade. It is a constitutional amendment. Why not go that route? Because there isn’t enough political support among the voters to get the amendment passed by the requisite number of states. </p>

<p>That means letting the abortion/Supreme Court packing issue be a voter’s litmus issue for every candidate causes that voter to squander his or her vote and not necessarily select a better candidate on issues that are capable of broad-based citizen support.</p>

<p>Pharmagal and lealdragon seem to be asking each other whether they are willing to accept a personal impact by their “principles” as to how others should live. It is a valid question to which they, and most of us, seem to usually say “no,” when being honest.</p>

<p>Well, the US population has gone from 200 million in 1967 to 300 million in 2007. Add back in the 35 to 45 million people if there had not been the abortions and then add their children that would have been born in the 35 years since *Roe v. Wade *and we would probably be at 400 million.</p>

<p>There are about 750,000 teen pregnancies a year of which 1/3 abort, 1/3 give birth and 1/3 end in miscarriage. The adoption rate of these babies is way less than 10% AND the probability that the daughters of unwed teenage mothers will also have babies as unwed teens is greatly in excess of 50%. Add to this that teen mothers almost always do not finish HS and end up in poverty and that the boys born to unwed teen mothers have approximately a 23% higher probability of serving time in jail, ending abortion will cause a huge increase in the burden on all taxpayers to fund services for these indigent and jailed additional US citizens.</p>

<p>With the end of abortion, all of us can rest assured that we will be personally effected. It is my opinion that is why the “pro-life” OR ELSE stance is politically un-sellable to the vast majority of US taxpayers. AND, since no one is forced to have an abortion, fiscal conservatives are starting to get the picture that trying to force people to have babies they can’t support isn’t worth it and does not keep the “moral” citizens from chosing the “right path.” Hence, Pat R’s decision makes perfect sense.</p>