United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Ron Paul Wins Presidential Straw Poll At CPAC
Source:
CNN
URL Source: http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/20/conservatives.meeting/?hpt=T1
Published: Feb 20, 2010
Author: CNN
Post Date: 2010-02-20 19:12:43 by Brian S
Keywords: None
Views: 2547
Comments: 55
(CNN) -- U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, on Saturday won a straw poll for president on the final day of the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington. He got 31 percent of the vote. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who won the straw poll the past three years, was second with 22 percent and former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin with 7 percent. The straw poll provides an early window into who conservative activists believe should be the next GOP nominee. The three-day meeting Saturday that has featured speeches by Republican leaders, training sessions for local political activists and a renewed purpose to stand firm behind their principles heading into the midterm elections. In the first two days, speakers at CPAC played up voter frustrations and predicted a comeback for the GOP, a little more than a year after suffering political losses. U.S. Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana made no apologies for trying to stop President Obama's agenda in Congress, telling attendees that he proudly wears the "Party of No" label that Democrats have tried to pin on Republicans. "Some folks like to call us the 'Party of No,'" Pence said during his speech Friday. "Well, I say 'No' is way underrated here in Washington, D.C. Sometimes 'No' is just what this town needs to hear." On Saturday, attendees will hear from former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania and a host of conservative luminaries. The conference will close with the results of a 2012 presidential straw poll and an address by conservative commentator Glenn Beck. Pence, a potential 2012 presidential candidate, used his address to the influential bloc of GOP base voters to promote his conservative credentials further and sharply criticize the president and the congressional Democratic majority. Pence, who is chairman of the House Republican Conference, predicted the GOP would reclaim a majority in the House of Representatives in November and the White House in 2012. "Welcome to the conservative comeback and the beginning of the end of the Pelosi Congress," Pence said to applause. The congressman from Indiana is one of several Republicans said to be eyeing a White House bid who addressed the meeting. Romney spoke Thursday, the opening day of this annual meeting, and Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty preceded Pence on Friday morning. Paul spoke Friday afternoon, while Santorum and Gingrich are scheduled to appear on the closing day. Paul ignited the crowd with a scorching indictment of lawmakers in Washington, whom he accused of failing to address the nation's growing debt. "Debt is the monster," Paul said, condemning federal borrowing to support government spending. "Debt is what will eat us up, and that's why our economy is on the brink." Particular attention was paid to not only what these potential presidential candidates said, but how their comments were received by the attendees. Unlike Romney, who delivered a polished, rousing speech to the conservative audience, Pawlenty opted to speak without a teleprompter and riff off his notes. Having drawn an early time slot for his speech, Pawlenty spoke to a relatively low-energy crowd in a ballroom with scores of empty seats. "When we were here a year ago at CPAC, there were a lot of naysayers," Pawlenty said Friday. "We had all these pundits and smart alecks saying the sun was setting on the conservative movement. ... We had people talking about how the new era of hope and change was sweeping aside our values and principles. Hope and change and teleprompter," he said. U.S. Rep. Steve King of Iowa followed Pawlenty and fired up the crowd by declaring that Obama has "lost his mojo." "He had more mojo than any president that I remember when he was inaugurated a year and a month ago. But now, the master-mesmerizer has lost his mojo," King said. "And if we stand our ground as constitutional conservatives, he's not going to get it back." U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota blasted Obama's economic policies Friday, and declared that the president is leading America into a state of "decline." During her speech, Bachmann also took aim at Democratic efforts at health care reform and cap-and-trade policies designed to combat global warming, saying such measures will keep the U.S. economy on "an unsustainable path." The CPAC conference follows a meeting of "Tea Party" activists that took place earlier in February in Nashville, Tennessee. Followers of the Tea Party movement express independence from the national Republican Party, but a CNN Opinion Research Corp. poll shows that these activists would vote overwhelmingly Republican in a two-party race for Congress. Tea Party Movement activists held a late afternoon reception for attendees that featured patriotic songs, hors d'oeuvres and an open bar. House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, spoke out Thursday about the conservative grassroots movement that emerged in the past year out of concerns about certain policy issues and gridlock in Washington. "The Republican Party should not attempt to co-opt the tea parties," Boehner said. "I think that's the dumbest thing in the world. What we will do, as long as I'm the leader, is respect them, listen to them and walk amongst them. The other party will never, ever do that." Other opening-day speakers included former Vice President Dick Cheney, Sens. Scott Brown of Massachusetts and Jim DeMint of South Carolina, and Florida Senate candidate Marco Rubio. Conservatives were in a different mind-set a year ago. At the 2009 conference, the Republican Party was still reeling from Obama's victory over Sen. John McCain as well as the additional gains Democrats made in Congress in 2008. But in the past 12 months, Republicans have seen the political tide turn: Obama's approval rating has dropped below 50 percent, several congressional Democrats have announced they will retire at the end of the year and Brown took the seat once occupied by Sen. Ted Kennedy, the liberal lion of Massachusetts for more than four decades.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Brian S (#0)
LOL Paultard spamming. Keep it up. I love laughing at these spazzes.
I too find it entertaining, indeed!
What a slap in the face to Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, Dick Cheney and the GOP establishment. Wow.
Being a Republican means you get to choose your own reality.
I'm all for slapping the face of the Republican establishment. the funny thing is that you guys are the quintessential establishment now with your boy in the white house.
Goldi-Lox: You're one dumb-fucking bitch.
I like Ron Paul. He is a constitutionalist for the most part. I disagree with him on things like not wanting a constitutional amendment to ban fag marriage and baby killing. A great shortcoming of his. Otherwise he is very good on the issues. He was wrong to vote for war in Afghanistan.
And yet somehow I keep hearing "conservatives" argue we'll be better off to put Bush's crowd back into power. The Freepers are absolutely livid over this poll result. Being a Republican means you get to choose your own reality.
Funny you should say that. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2453526/posts
Ain't it amazing that in the biggest gathering of "Conservatives", Sarah Palin barely edges out Tim Pawlenty with 7% support? Who do you think she'll lash out at over this? Fox? Gingrich? Beck? Coulter?
Being a Republican means you get to choose your own reality.
Freepers are upset with Beck for criticizing birthers. You know, when Glenn Beck is the sanest person in the room it's one hell of an indicator as to the level of craziness of the rest of the room.
Being a Republican means you get to choose your own reality.
Katie Couric. There's no doubt about it.
No one.
Without a doubt this is NOT the outcome the CPAC organizers hoped for, in fact it is a nightmare. Waiting to see how the MSM treats this... Should be fun, indeed! {{{chuckle}}}
And yet somehow I keep hearing "conservatives" argue we'll be better off to put Bush's crowd back into power. The Freepers are absolutely livid over this poll result. www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2455858/posts I don't think you understand. You guys are the "establishment", like it or not. You guys like to say that this is all Bush's fault (I don't like Bush, but I demand intellectual honesty from both sides), yet you frequently fail to acknowledge that all this crap started 11 months AFTER Pelosi took over the House and Reid took over the Senate. The fact is that in 9 months the voters are going to wipe that shit-eating grin Go65 right off your face and I'll be here to laugh at you.
Goldi-Lox: You're one dumb-fucking bitch.
That's like saying a guy who eats McDonalds every day for 10 years doesn't have any problems until "after" the heart attack. Go back to 2001-04 when Bush and the GOP got rid of PAYGO and instituted massive tax cuts, massive new spending programs, and launched two wars, without paying for any of it. If Bush simply would have continued the Clinton surpluses there would be a minimal deficit now, and we'd have the financial wherewithal to spend a whole lot more to boost the economy as other countries like China have done.
Being a Republican means you get to choose your own reality.
If Bush simply would have continued the Clinton surpluses there would be a minimal deficit now, and we'd have the financial wherewithal to spend a whole lot more to boost the economy as other countries like China have done. Dude, if ignorance is bliss you'd be the happiest man in the world. How about if we didn't spend more than we took in? DUH!!!!
Goldi-Lox: You're one dumb-fucking bitch.
Not really. None of them are conservatives,so why should they take it personal? Let's talk about the daily slap in the face of "progressives" that the Bush 4.0 administration represents. How's that Hope and Change thing going for ya? Ended any wars lately?
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
BullBush! He is just being consistent. Homosexuals that are American citizens have the same rights as the rest of us under the Constitution,and the whole "baby killing" bullshit isn't going anywhere as long as you think life begins at erection and that women don't have the right to self-defense. What Paul believes is that ALL American citizens have the same rights and responsibilities are every other American citizen. No more and no less. And I wouldn't have it any other way.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
And I wouldn't have it any other way. I believe that. Ron Paul things faggots are special and should be able to marry the same sex. Marriage has a definition. Ron Paul would allow meanings of things to change in order to suck up to the faggots. Faggots have no right to marry another man. They can marry any woman who is willing just like the rest of us. Would you allow a faggot to mary the pile of shit after I take a crap? As some of you say. It wouldn't affect your marriage.
Why do you have so much trouble comprehending this? They are conservatives,and she isn't. What's so hard to understand about that?
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
I believe that. Ron Paul things faggots are special and should be able to marry the same sex. No,YOU think faggots are special and demand "special treatment". Paul just thinks they should be treated like any other American citizen. Marriage has a definition. Where is it defined in the US Constitution? Since it isn't,how is it any business of the government? Ron Paul would allow meanings of things to change in order to suck up to the faggots. Wrong. YOU are the one that wants things to change to create different classes of citizens and citizenship rights. Faggots have no right to marry another man. Sure they do. They can marry any woman who is willing just like the rest of us. ROFLMAO! Yeah,stay in the closet,marry a woman,and have children. What could possibly go wrong there,huh? How is it possible that you don't understand that any government that has the power to demand a homosexual male marry a heterosexual woman also has the power to demand YOU marry a man? Who you or anyone else marries is the ultimate personal decision. Why are you so willing to turn this decision over to the power of government? BTW,do homosexual women also have the right to marry any woman who is willing,"just like the rest of us."? Would you allow a faggot to mary the pile of shit after I take a crap? That pile of crap isn't a citizen. If it WERE a citizen,they would have a right to marry if they wanted,and they would not need my permission. Or yours. It's called Individual Freedom From Government Oppression.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
You and I need to have a talk about your slouching into latent liberalism, sneak. /wink
The fact I was an RM2 escapes you obviously, and what that implies. Boofer posted on 2007-01-30 16:42:29 ET Reply Trace You know, when Glenn Beck is the sanest person in the room it's one hell of an indicator as to the level of craziness of the rest of the room. The true spirit of Glenn Beck was his Moron Trivia where he would mock and demean generally hard working though naive employees of fast food and 7/11 type establishments.
A government that creates the definition of marriage can change the definition of marriage. It had no business entering that area in the first place.
/wink Mine is the liberalism of the Founding Fathers,not the police state socialism of the modern Americans. There is no creature on Earth LESS "liberal" than the nanny state crowd. They stole the word "liberal" because they knew they would never gather any support if they publicly identified themselves as the communists they are.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
BINGO!
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
How about if we didn't spend more than we took in? DUH!!!! Well sure, but there are times when you SHOULD spend more when you take in - wars, national crisis, economic downturns. The trick is to spend LESS then you take in when the economy is growing, like we did in the later part of the Clinton administration. I found this earlier, it sums the problem with "Democrats aren't cutting spending so let's elect Republican arguments" I keep hearing: http://blog.infinitemonkeysblog.com/?q=node/7123#comment-23302 Being a Republican means you get to choose your own reality.
They'll give you the standard reply...I HATED Boy Blunder...it;s why most of them voted for him not once but twice without addressing the fact that this is the third GOP adminstration in a row that has mamaged to either screw up a good economy or screw up and economy that got better duri9ng their watch... But Gore and Kerry were worse, remember?
The fact I was an RM2 escapes you obviously, and what that implies. Boofer posted on 2007-01-30 16:42:29 ET Reply Trace Wrong. You're obviously a Keynesian and in case you haven't been paying attention this last 1.5 years, Keynesian economics has been discredited.
Goldi-Lox: You're one dumb-fucking bitch.
So that was Clinton that gave us our surpluses. Right? Not congress? Or am I misreading the Constitution?
Goldi-Lox: You're one dumb-fucking bitch.
They should have stopped spending in 2006 but didn't. Keyenes, if anything, has once again found to be DOB...
The fact I was an RM2 escapes you obviously, and what that implies. Boofer posted on 2007-01-30 16:42:29 ET Reply Trace Congress doesn't spend a cent. They only appropriate. The Executive Branch spends.
The fact I was an RM2 escapes you obviously, and what that implies. Boofer posted on 2007-01-30 16:42:29 ET Reply Trace They are trying to change it right fucking now. Sad you can't stand up for something as basic to society as this.
Sneaky. I think you are an ok guy. But let me just say you are dumber then even Obama on this one. It is you queer supporters that are trying to change things and make different classes of people. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Period end of discussion.
Right!
Wrong twice in one sentence. I am not a queer supporter. I am neither for nor against them on a personal level. I am a supporter of the US Constitution,and the US Constitution says that all citizens are to be treated equally. You are either a citizen and share the rights and freedoms of all other citizens,or you're not a citizen and don't have those rights and freedoms. Period. And,marriage is of no legitimate concern of the government. It is a religious and/or social concern. It is also the ultimate personal choice.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
Sorry but when the nanny state sticks it's nose into unconstitutional concerns then you end up with these tyes of problems. And then you nanny staters ask the government to remedy the problems it created. Thereby creating more need for a bigger nanny state.
You constradict yourself pete! By admitting you are neither 'for nor against' homosexuals just shows that you are a man who has no principles for which he can stand for, you are a 'fence sitter' who thinks if everyone just 'goes along to get along' this world would be a better place. And I want you to point directly at where in our Constitution is says that we have to tolerate another man, or womans, immorallity, or where it says I have NO right to demand they leave my children out of their perverted lifestyle. Show me exactly where it says that I, or anyone else, have to allow these perverted sloths access to our children, and taught they have to tolerate this behavior. You can't, because you're a G-dless man who doesn't care, one way or the other. You are a man who has no stand to call his own!
The Dems would be frothing at the mouth waiting to create the huge new bureacracy enabled by a Constitutional amendment that would implement the policies for the US Dept of Heterosexual Marriage Enforcement. And you would be bitching about the higher taxes and the need for more Fed employees to enforce it's regulations. And the resulting reduction in your rights and liberties.
By admitting you are neither 'for nor against' homosexuals just shows that you are a man who has no principles for which he can stand for, you are a 'fence sitter' who thinks if everyone just 'goes along to get along' this world would be a better place. No,I don't. In fact,the opposite is true. I stand for the principle of law and equality. This country was formed in order to create equality amongst citizens who could enjoy their lives as free men,with no special classes of citizens who had more rights or freedoms than others. What YOU and others want to do is create a special class of sub-citizens with fewer rights than the rest of us for homosexuals because you don't like them. Be careful what you ask for because there is no shortage of room at the bottom for "special classes of citizens". What you are totally missing is that it doesn't matter if you hate homosexuals,blacks,Catholics,Jews,Muslims,Irish,Mexicans,Protestants,or anybody else,it is the DUTY of the government to treat all citizens equally under the US Constitution. As for me "sitting on the fence",what the hell difference does that make? Is the law of the land supposed to reflect my likes and dislikes,and not exist at all for things I don't care about one way or the other? Who died and made ME God? INDIVIDUAL citizens have the right to discriminate. The government does NOT enjoy this right. And discrimination can be either positive or negative. And I want you to point directly at where in our Constitution is says that we have to tolerate another man, or womans, immorallity, or where it says I have NO right to demand they leave my children out of their perverted lifestyle. Sure thing. Right after you point out the part to me where it says you DO have the right to demand other citizens have less rights than you do,or it is the governments responsibility to enforce your view of morality on the rest of us. While you are at it,show me the part where it says it is the responsibility of the government to raise your children. You can't, because you're a G-dless man who doesn't care, one way or the other. Ahhh,back to the Bibe-Bull,are ya? Any other fictional books you want to bring into this? Ever heard of separation of church and state? You are a man who has no stand to call his own! More proof of how twisted your thinking is. I don't follow the Bibe-Bull and the cult leaders of religion like a mindless sheep,so I don't stand on my own feet and express my own views,huh? If anybody has no claim to standing on their own it is the cult followers of organized religion. All you do is follow the religious teachers of your cult leaders and try to get laws passed to force the rest of us to obey your superstitions. If people like you had your way,the citizens of this country would be enjoying all the freedom of the people of places like Afghanistan and Iran.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
The Dems would be frothing at the mouth waiting to create the huge new bureacracy enabled by a Constitutional amendment that would implement the policies for the US Dept of Heterosexual Marriage Enforcement. Absolutely! And part of he new code would be laws demanding interracial and interfaith marriages in order to help further the "We are the world" mentality so popular with the left. Not to mention the population control crowd piping in with demands that a certain percentage of marriages be between homosexuals and heterosexuals to "further understanding and diversity while helping to save the planet by keeping population levels down". To go hand in hand with this women would be required to get a permit to have a child. I'm wondering how well all that would go with the "there oughta be a law!" crowd. And you would be bitching about the higher taxes and the need for more Fed employees to enforce it's regulations. Maybe the higher taxes,but there would be no bitching about the new "Morality Police" because they think these police would be enforcing THEIR morality on everybody else and it wouldn't affect them. People LOVE to see others punished when they know the punishment won't be applied to them. And the resulting reduction in your rights and liberties. That's where you are wrong. This crowd WANTS fewer rights and liberties for everybody,including themselves. Being told how to live and what to think is at the very core of organized religion. Right now they are seriously pissed because other people are running around doing the things they wish they could do,but are too afraid of doing because they aren't allowed,and this is why they want laws passed to take away individual rights. The old "If I can't do it,I don't want anybody else doing it,either!" mindset.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
You are a complete moron on this subject. I guess I have a right to go in the womans restroom. You have an evil streak of liberalism in you.
Comments (42 - 55) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#2. To: dont eat that (#1)
#3. To: Brian S (#0)
#4. To: go65 (#3)
What a slap in the face to Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, Dick Cheney and the GOP establishment. Wow.
#5. To: dont eat that (#1)
#6. To: Nebuchadnezzar (#4)
the funny thing is that you guys are the quintessential establishment now with your boy in the white house.
#7. To: go65 (#6)
And yet somehow I keep hearing "conservatives" argue we'll be better off to put Bush's crowd back into power.
#8. To: Skip Intro, War, Brian S (#7)
#9. To: Skip Intro (#7)
Funny you should say that.
#10. To: go65 (#8)
Who do you think she'll lash out at over this? Fox? Gingrich? Beck? Coulter?
#11. To: go65 (#8)
Who do you think she'll lash out at over this? Fox? Gingrich? Beck? Coulter?
#12. To: go65 (#8)
Ain't it amazing that in the biggest gathering of "Conservatives", Sarah Palin barely edges out Tim Pawlenty with 7% support?
#13. To: go65 (#6)
the funny thing is that you guys are the quintessential establishment now with your boy in the white house.
#14. To: Nebuchadnezzar (#13)
You guys like to say that this is all Bush's fault (I don't like Bush, but I demand intellectual honesty from both sides), yet you frequently fail to acknowledge that all this crap started 11 months AFTER Pelosi took over the House and Reid took over the Senate.
#15. To: go65 (#14)
Go back to 2001-04 when Bush and the GOP got rid of PAYGO and instituted massive tax cuts, massive new spending programs, and launched two wars, without paying for any of it.
#16. To: go65 (#3)
What a slap in the face to Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, Dick Cheney and the GOP establishment. Wow.
#17. To: A K A Stone (#5)
I disagree with him on things like not wanting a constitutional amendment to ban fag marriage and baby killing. A great shortcoming of his.
#18. To: sneakypete (#17)
What Paul believes is that ALL American citizens have the same rights and responsibilities are every other American citizen. No more and no less.
#19. To: go65 (#8)
Ain't it amazing that in the biggest gathering of "Conservatives", Sarah Palin barely edges out Tim Pawlenty with 7% support?
#20. To: A K A Stone (#18)
#21. To: sneakypete (#20)
(Edited)
#22. To: go65 (#9)
Freepers are upset with Beck for criticizing birthers.
#23. To: A K A Stone (#18)
I believe that. Ron Paul things faggots are special and should be able to marry the same sex. Marriage has a definition. Ron Paul would allow meanings of things to change in order to suck up to the faggots. Faggots have no right to marry another man. They can marry any woman who is willing just like the rest of us.
#24. To: war (#21)
You and I need to have a talk about your slouching into latent liberalism, sneak.
#25. To: mininggold, A K A Stone (#23)
A government that creates the definition of marriage can change the definition of marriage. It had no business entering that area in the first place.
#26. To: Nebuchadnezzar, war, badeye (#15)
Dude, if ignorance is bliss you'd be the happiest man in the world.
It's a weird hypothetical, Rick. What spending cuts did the Republican congress and Republican president approve the last decade when they ran the entire government?
At the end of George Bush's eight years, the federal government was bigger than it had been when he took office -- even accounting for the fact of the wars. This is indisputable. President Obama this week, meanwhile, signed a bill requiring new spending to be paid for. Same rules that existed under Clinton -- and which were discarded during the Republican years.
The record suggests that Republicans are really good about talking spending cuts ... when they're out of power. The idea that they're the party of fiscal responsibility -- implicit in your hypothetical -- has zero credibility.
#27. To: go65 (#26)
#28. To: go65 (#26)
Well sure, but there are times when you SHOULD spend more when you take in - wars, national crisis, economic downturns. The trick is to spend LESS then you take in when the economy is growing, like we did in the later part of the Clinton administration.
#29. To: All, Badeye (#28)
The trick is to spend LESS then you take in when the economy is growing, like we did in the later part of the Clinton administration.
#30. To: Nebuchadnezzar (#28)
You're obviously a Keynesian and in case you haven't been paying attention this last 1.5 years, Keynesian economics has been discredited.
#31. To: Nebuchadnezzar (#29)
#32. To: mininggold (#23)
A government that creates the definition of marriage can change the definition of marriage.
#33. To: sneakypete (#20)
Wrong. YOU are the one that wants things to change to create different classes of citizens and citizenship rights.
#34. To: A K A Stone (#33)
Marriage is between a man and a woman. Period end of discussion.
#35. To: A K A Stone (#33)
. It is you queer supporters that are trying to change things and make different classes of people.
#36. To: A K A Stone (#32)
They are trying to change it right fucking now. Sad you can't stand up for something as basic to society as this.
#37. To: sneakypete (#35)
"I am not a queer supporter. I am neither for nor against them on a personal level. I am a supporter of the US Constitution,and the US Constitution says that all citizens are to be treated equally. You are either a citizen and share the rights and freedoms of all other citizens,or you're not a citizen and don't have those rights and freedoms. Period."
#38. To: Murron (#37)
By admitting you are neither 'for nor against' homosexuals just shows that you are a man who has no principles for which he can stand for, you are a 'fence sitter' who thinks if everyone just 'goes along to get along' this world would be a better place.
#39. To: Murron (#37)
You constradict yourself pete!
#40. To: mininggold (#38)
#41. To: sneakypete (#35)
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]