Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

CNN Poll: Rand Paul goes where his father never went
CNN ^ | 03-16-2014 | CNN

Posted on 03/16/2014 1:55:55 PM PDT by PaulCruz2016

Washington (CNN) - Rand Paul has done something his father never did - top the list of potential Republican presidential candidates in a national poll.

According to a new CNN/ORC International survey, 16% of Republicans and independents who lean toward the GOP say they would be likely to support the senator from Kentucky for the 2016 nomination.

Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the 2012 Republican vice presidential nominee, garnered 15%, with longtime Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who's considering another bid for the White House, at 11%.

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, a 2008 GOP presidential candidate, is the only other Republican tested in the survey to crack double digits.

The poll's sampling error means that statistically it's not a win for Paul, but his finish is a breakthrough for his family.

A national Quinnipiac poll found Paul tied with Ryan in January for the top spot. That appears to be as close as either Rand Paul or his father, Ron Paul, has ever come to nabbing first place all by himself in any national poll.

Among the other potential presidential hopefuls in the new CNN survey, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush is at 9%, with New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas each at 8%.

Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida registered 5% and former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, who battled eventual GOP nominee Mitt Romney deep into the 2012 GOP primary and caucus calendar, polled 3%.

(Excerpt) Read more at politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com ...


TOPICS: Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2016; paul; polling; randpaul

1 posted on 03/16/2014 1:55:55 PM PDT by PaulCruz2016
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: PaulCruz2016

Ted Cruz has made him look more moderate?


2 posted on 03/16/2014 1:59:09 PM PDT by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PaulCruz2016

I’m open to what he has to say. I’ll listen.


3 posted on 03/16/2014 1:59:27 PM PDT by Ciexyz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PaulCruz2016

Rand Paul was never on my top tier list, but he was on my “uncertain” list until his recent comments about social issues. Now he is on my “I have work to do in the garden that day” list.

Actually I always vote. But I don’t always vote for the candidate that the Republican establishment places before me. (Hence, votes for Pat Buchanan, Alan Keyes, and Tom Hoefling.)

As a social conservative, it is doubtful that you will find me voting for Rand Paul. You don’t have to like it. That’s just the way it is.


4 posted on 03/16/2014 2:06:18 PM PDT by Engraved-on-His-hands (Conservative 2016!! The Dole, H.W. Bush, McCain, Romney experiment has failed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PaulCruz2016

Rand Paul is no Dr Ron Paul!


5 posted on 03/16/2014 2:09:14 PM PDT by gunnyg ("A Constitution changed from Freedom, can never be restored; Liberty, once lost, is lost forever...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Engraved-on-His-hands

>>As a social conservative, it is doubtful that you will find me voting for Rand Paul. You don’t have to like it. That’s just the way it is.<<

Why is that? If Senator Paul stands for a federal government that follows the Constitution, what part of the Constitution needs to be overridden to accommodate your social conservatism?

Do we need to ban abortion at the federal level? Or can that be left to the states?

Do we need to define marriage at the federal level, or can tax laws simply be revised to accommodate partners, i.e, beneficiaries?

What religion does the federal government have to endorse? Christianity? Or is it sufficient that we revert to the Constitution and quit driving Christianity out of the public square (seemingly to substitute Islam, lately)?

Senator Paul isn’t running for governor; he’s running for President (or at least it sure appears that way). What specific social issue does he have to take with him to the Presidency, and seek to incorporate in federal law to meet your needs?

Isn’t Constitutional government (finally) sufficient to let you pursue whatever social contract you desire at the state level?

Aren’t we better off with the federal government reined in by the Constitution?

And aren’t social conservatives likely to be far better off if a President Paul gets to appoint the next 2 or 3 members of the Supreme Court instead of a President Clinton?

Isn’t it sufficient that he’s both pro-life and pro-2nd-Amendment, even if it turns out that he considers only the latter to be a federal issue? Or that he thinks a marriage should be between a man and a woman, but is willing to let the states decide individually how to treat the issue? (I don’t know his position on this issue, by the way.)


6 posted on 03/16/2014 2:22:54 PM PDT by Norseman (Defund the Left-Completely!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: PaulCruz2016

16 % ???
That is the top?
How about we wait until we have the off year elections before we crown any victors in the Presidential election...........


7 posted on 03/16/2014 2:29:42 PM PDT by SECURE AMERICA (Where can I go to sign up for the American Revolution 2014 and the Crusades 2014?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Norseman

There is a culture war going on. Being a non-combatant will not stop the downward spiral.

The President, with his bully pulpit, is a man of influence. He can influence public opinion. For an example of how public opinion has changed, over the last 15 years homosexuality has gone from being illegal to the point that one in many cases cannot simply express one’s view, even politely, that it is sinful, without being fired, fined, not allowed to graduate from college, or even jailed.

The Constitution allows us to choose this path. We don’t need a leader who is OK with that, as long as it is Constitutional. We need a leader to influence public opinion to halt the handbasket that is headed toward the cesspool at the bottom of the slippery slope. Rand Paul will not be that man. He might alter the speed of the handbasket, but not the direction.

Now, I’m headed to church this evening. Perhaps that in itself is becoming a novel concept. Like I said, you don’t have to like it...


8 posted on 03/16/2014 2:39:31 PM PDT by Engraved-on-His-hands (Conservative 2016!! The Dole, H.W. Bush, McCain, Romney experiment has failed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: PaulCruz2016

So the leading minds right now are Paul, Ryan, Perry and Huckabee?

Good thing we’ve got a couple years to keep looking.


9 posted on 03/16/2014 2:41:24 PM PDT by highball ("I never should have switched from scotch to martinis." -- the last words of Humphrey Bogart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Norseman

Rand Paul has come out against social conservatism, and the GOP platform, he is obviously not a social conservative.

We won’t end federal abortions, federal gay marriage, and federal acceptance of the gay agenda, without a conservative party platform, a conservative party, conservative candidates, and selling conservatism to the American people in our campaigns, and conservative nominees, and office holders.

Libertarians are libertarian at ALL levels of government.


10 posted on 03/16/2014 2:57:00 PM PDT by ansel12 ((Libertarianism offers the transitory concepts and dialogue to move from conservatism, to liberalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: PaulCruz2016

He learned to avoid making some of his father’s statements in speeches and how to gather more fans.


11 posted on 03/16/2014 3:05:16 PM PDT by familyop (We Baby Boomers are croaking in an avalanche of corruption smelled around the planet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Engraved-on-His-hands

First, in most states homosexuality was not illegal. There have been open homosexuals around forever.

What’s relatively recent is the viciousness some of them demonstrate whenever someone takes a stance in opposition to one of their goals. As you point out, that approach has worked for them.

So, would Rand Paul support their actions, or condemn them? Not their goals, but the way they’ve acted in attempting to achieve them. Rabid environmentalists often act the in the same manner.

If you are saying (and you might not be—I don’t want to put words in your mouth) that the GOP must nominate someone who will put homosexuals back in the closet, by making overt homosexuality illegal, you must surely realize that such a person would lose even worse than Goldwater did.

I’m not questioning your morals, or your principles, but your strategy for advancing those morals and principles.


12 posted on 03/16/2014 3:11:39 PM PDT by Norseman (Defund the Left-Completely!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: highball

Toss in Cruz, Rubio, Carson, Palin and a couple more and I think our bench is in a lot better shape than it was last time around.

It’s also very encouraging to not see Romney or Christie at the top of the heap.


13 posted on 03/16/2014 3:14:03 PM PDT by Norseman (Defund the Left-Completely!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: familyop

...or he has different opinions than his father and has impressed more people with his thinking.


14 posted on 03/16/2014 3:15:59 PM PDT by Norseman (Defund the Left-Completely!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Norseman

Prior to 1962, sodomy was a felony in every state, punished by a lengthy term of imprisonment and/or hard labor.

If you think homosexuality was open and free in America before the left/libertarians took over in the 60s, you are wrong.

They existed, and were not much harassed, but their activities were tightly restricted, and were illegal, as described today, they were closeted.


15 posted on 03/16/2014 3:22:09 PM PDT by ansel12 ((Libertarianism offers the transitory concepts and dialogue to move from conservatism, to liberalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Engraved-on-His-hands

I agree with you. Rand Paul caught my attention for awhile, but his dismissal of social conservatives has alienated me. I am a values voter and believe God will hold each of us responsible for our vote. I want a moral God-fearing individual that is for life and the traditional family. My list has now shrunk to Ted Cruz, Sarah Palin, and perhaps Rick Perry. This country can continue to vote its way to hell, but I don’t want to be any part of it!


16 posted on 03/16/2014 3:40:20 PM PDT by 2nd Amendment (Proud member of the 48% . . giver not a taker)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

Actually, he might be a social conservative, but not want the federal government messing around with social issues.

The way you get rid of federal abortion is to get rid of Roe vs. Wade and return the issue to the states. That will require appointment of judges who respect the Constitution as written.

The way you get rid of federal gay marriage is to get the federal government out of the marriage business. Or would you prefer a federal law favoring gay marriage, because according to recent polls, that would be the likely result.

And the way you get rid of imposing a gay agenda on the nation via an all-reaching federal government is to reduce that government to its Constitutional limits at which time the gay movement will move its efforts back to individual states where it will matter, and where they will not always win.

I consider myself a social conservative in most respects, but Senator Paul is correct on wanting to expand the GOP base by focusing primarily upon reducing the role of the federal government in our personal lives. Reducing the role of the federal government substantially will accomplish much good for social conservatism and it’s in the realm of the possible with the right leadership.

Colorado has embarked on marijuana legalization. I see both both merits and problems with that, but one thing I’m reasonably sure of is that many states will now wait and watch and learn from Colorado’s experience. A kid’s life shouldn’t be ruined over a single joint, but maybe a kid’s life will be ruined anyway over thousands of joints? Do we really want to take this to the federal level, or is it better dealing with it at the state level? (And yes, I know it’s against federal law now, though not enforced.)


17 posted on 03/16/2014 3:41:03 PM PDT by Norseman (Defund the Left-Completely!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Norseman
The way you get rid of federal gay marriage is to get the federal government out of the marriage business. Or would you prefer a federal law favoring gay marriage, because according to recent polls, that would be the likely result.

I'd prefer judges that uphold the will of the people and constitutional amendments passed by the people at the state level.

I question whether Paul can be trusted to name judges will do that or overturn Roe.

18 posted on 03/16/2014 3:45:02 PM PDT by Kazan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Norseman
Actually, he might be a social conservative, but not want the federal government messing around with social issues.

Given that the Federal government hands Planned Parenthood more than half a billion dollars a year, abortion is an issue can't be avoided.

19 posted on 03/16/2014 3:48:43 PM PDT by Kazan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: PaulCruz2016

Well .. as usual the liberal media has decided to pick the candidate for the GOP.

So what else is new.

Anybody who falls for this is minus a brain!!!


20 posted on 03/16/2014 3:49:35 PM PDT by CyberAnt (MY AMERICA: "... I'm terrified it's slipping away.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

I’ll accept your statement. How many people, in how many states, were prosecuted for the felony of sodomy in the 20th Century?

Prohibition made alcohol production and sale illegal. You could conceivably view that as a social conservative triumph. It didn’t work out as intended and the best move was to get the feds out of the alcohol business and return the matter to the states.

Ditto for sodomy. Or do you really think that we need a federal law against it? More pertinent to the issue at hand, do you think anyone can get elected today by advocating making sodomy a federal felony? (Maybe it already is; I don’t know. But if it is, it’s gathering dust for sure.)


21 posted on 03/16/2014 3:50:31 PM PDT by Norseman (Defund the Left-Completely!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Ciexyz
I’m open to what he has to say. I’ll listen.

Same here. He actually has a shot at getting elected.

22 posted on 03/16/2014 3:52:02 PM PDT by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Kazan

See my tagline (which is completely consistent with dramatically reducing the role of the federal government, by the way.)


23 posted on 03/16/2014 3:52:31 PM PDT by Norseman (Defund the Left-Completely!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Norseman

You may believe in reducing the size of government. Does Rand Paul have the guts to fight to eliminate funding for PP? Given his desire to soften the party’s stance on social issues, I’m not so sure.


24 posted on 03/16/2014 3:56:22 PM PDT by Kazan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Norseman

We aren’t political rookies here.

A social conservative politician does not come out and declare himself as the candidate who is going to push back against the social conservatives and the party platform, if he is a true conservative.

You can’t defeat Roe v Wade without a conservative party platform, a conservative party, conservative candidates, and selling conservatism to the American people in our campaigns, and choosing conservative nominees, and office holders.

You keep ignoring the facts, the feds recognize state law on marriage, and therefore we have gay marriage at the federal level, in the military, federal employment and immigration.

We also have libertarian recognition of gay equality and marriage in the military.

Only conservative politicians can end the libertarian/leftist agenda of federal acceptance of the gay agenda and abortion.

The battle is especially intense when fighting federal abortion in federal hospitals and on federal land.

Libertarians are libertarians, at every level of government.


25 posted on 03/16/2014 3:56:38 PM PDT by ansel12 ((Libertarianism offers the transitory concepts and dialogue to move from conservatism, to liberalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Kazan

I think you’re misinterpreting Paul’s position. He’s not jettisoning his principles as much as he’s putting Constitutional principles first. The Constitution, as written, put significant limits on federal powers, limits that Paul wants to see invoked again.

Given that, would he really appoint Supreme Court Justices who think the Constitution is the “living document” the Left always claims it to be?

What he’s saying, I think, is that the Constitutional principles are paramount and, yes, trump personal principles, as they should since many of us don’t like where the Left’s “personal principles” have taken the nation.


26 posted on 03/16/2014 4:03:35 PM PDT by Norseman (Defund the Left-Completely!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Norseman
First, in most states homosexuality was not illegal.

Man you are full of it, homosexuality was even illegal at the federal level in the military, George Washington himself sentenced a man for homosexuality.

27 posted on 03/16/2014 4:05:03 PM PDT by ansel12 ((Libertarianism offers the transitory concepts and dialogue to move from conservatism, to liberalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Norseman

Too bad Paul holds and is running for federal office as he signals his rejection of social conservatism.

The federal government also has to make laws regarding marriage and abortion, and homosexuality at the federal level, and has for 234 years.


28 posted on 03/16/2014 4:08:06 PM PDT by ansel12 ((Libertarianism offers the transitory concepts and dialogue to move from conservatism, to liberalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

>>Only conservative politicians can end the libertarian/leftist agenda of federal acceptance of the gay agenda and abortion.<<

And how’s that been working out for us so far? What state, no matter how conservatively governed, has reduced the influence of gays, or outlawed abortion, in the past two decades, say?

What Senator Paul is saying is that conservatives need to broaden their base by becoming more inclusive and to do that they need to back off from their insistence that certain actions be taken at the federal level in favor of reducing federal influence overall.

I happen to think he’s right, and that the way to gaining younger voters, female voters, HIspanic voters, and even black voters is to argue for getting the federal government out of our lives and back in the Constitutional box the Founders designed for us. This isn’t betrayal; it’s coalition-building.


29 posted on 03/16/2014 4:13:47 PM PDT by Norseman (Defund the Left-Completely!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

I stand corrected, I guess. How many states in prosecuted homosexuals in the 20th Century successfully, and how often?

I’m under the impression such prosecutions were few and far between, but that’s based only on decades of reading the news during which time only Texas stood out as a place where prosecutions were attempted. Ironically, Houston in the sixties was a noted destination for gays nationwide, so even there the prosecutors must have been out to lunch most of the time.


30 posted on 03/16/2014 4:18:36 PM PDT by Norseman (Defund the Left-Completely!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Norseman

I’m born and raised in Houston and watched Montrose transition in the 70s, you are again way off base if you think homosexuals were free and open in Houston during the 60s.

One has to ask why you are do willing to bend things and search so desperately to promote anti-conservative, pro-homosexual arguments.


31 posted on 03/16/2014 4:31:11 PM PDT by ansel12 ((Libertarianism offers the transitory concepts and dialogue to move from conservatism, to liberalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Norseman

You oppose this?
“”Only conservative politicians can end the libertarian/leftist agenda of federal acceptance of the gay agenda and abortion.””

Rand who is a Senator voting on federal policy and law and is campaigning for federal office as he signals his rejection of social conservatism?

You aren’t interested in ending federally performed abortions, and federally recognized gay marriage in the military and federal employment and immigration, and gays in the military?


32 posted on 03/16/2014 4:35:22 PM PDT by ansel12 ((Libertarianism offers the transitory concepts and dialogue to move from conservatism, to liberalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Norseman
To clarify the timeline a bit, here is an excerpt from a speech that I gave in 2007. Add seven years to the dates given, and you have a timeline of some of the more significant landmarks. I have more, but this perhaps covers enough without being tedious.

Forty-seven years ago, homosexual behavior was not legally endorsed anywhere in the United States. Five years ago, it was still illegal in thirteen states. Now, due to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Lawrence v. Texas, it is legal in all fifty states.

Nineteen years ago, homosexual civil unions were not legal anywhere in the world. Eight years ago, homosexual civil unions were not permitted anywhere in the U.S.

Seven years ago, homosexual marriages were not legal anywhere in the world. Five years ago, homosexual marriages were not legal anywhere in the United States–nor anywhere else in the world outside of the Netherlands.


33 posted on 03/16/2014 5:01:38 PM PDT by Engraved-on-His-hands (Conservative 2016!! The Dole, H.W. Bush, McCain, Romney experiment has failed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: All

If Rand Paul is the nominee, I won’t vote for him. He basically said we have to give up our basic principles (pro-life, pro-family, pro-religion) to win the election.

We don’t need another squishy moderate to follow McCain and Romney into disaster.


34 posted on 03/16/2014 5:49:39 PM PDT by ClarenceThomasfan (My dream ticket is Cruz/Rubio 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

I didn’t say that they were “free and open” in the 60’s. I did say that it was a noted destination for gays in the 60’s and I’ll stand by that because it was.


35 posted on 03/16/2014 5:56:33 PM PDT by Norseman (Defund the Left-Completely!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Drew68; Ciexyz

Same here. He will win the moderates, independents and even a lot of democrats and cruise to victory like we did in 2012.


36 posted on 03/16/2014 6:04:19 PM PDT by Moorings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Norseman
"Ironically, Houston in the sixties was a noted destination for gays nationwide, so even there the prosecutors must have been out to lunch most of the time."
"First, in most states homosexuality was not illegal. There have been open homosexuals around forever."

You do search for ways to promote the homosexual agenda, but Houston was not as breezy on homosexuals as you want to imply, nor was the rest of the nation.

Why are you straining so hard to push the gay agenda?

37 posted on 03/16/2014 6:04:30 PM PDT by ansel12 ((Libertarianism offers the transitory concepts and dialogue to move from conservatism, to liberalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: ClarenceThomasfan

>>He basically said we have to give up our basic principles (pro-life, pro-family, pro-religion) to win the election.<<

He said no such thing. And I’ll stand by that until you produce a direct quote of his that shows that I’m wrong. Not an “interpretation” of what he really meant, but a quote that demonstrates his rejection of pro-life, pro-family principles.

I can’t speak to his religious beliefs, nor do I care to. That’s his business, not mine, so long as he’s not trying to force his religious beliefs, or non-beliefs, on me.


38 posted on 03/16/2014 6:05:57 PM PDT by Norseman (Defund the Left-Completely!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: ClarenceThomasfan

Where did he say that?


39 posted on 03/16/2014 6:09:21 PM PDT by Crimson Elephant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

ansel, a few days ago you said you wouldn’t talk to someone who put words in your mouth.

I’ll now exercise the same option.


40 posted on 03/16/2014 6:09:40 PM PDT by Norseman (Defund the Left-Completely!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Norseman

Rand did come out against social conservatism, he wants it out of the party.

Q—There was a consensus among young people at the recent Conservative Political Action Conference that the GOP needs to get out of social issues. Do you agree?

“I think it’s partly that.”

Q— it seems what they’re saying is that the Republican Party should stay out of issues like gay marriage.

“I think that the Republican Party, in order to get bigger, will have to agree to disagree on social issues. The Republican Party is not going to give up on having quite a few people who do believe in traditional marriage. But the Republican Party also has to find a place for young people and others who don’t want to be festooned by those issues.”

Q—As a libertarian, you believe in the sovereignty of the individual. But when it comes to the right for gays to marry, you said it should be left up to the states. Isn’t that a contradiction?

“On issues that are very contentious, that involve social mores—I think that allowing different parts of the country to make their decision based on the local mores and culture is a good idea. But when it comes to taxes and benefits, the [federal] government out to take a neutral position—a way where marriage wouldn’t have an effect, positive or negative, on those things.”


41 posted on 03/16/2014 6:16:38 PM PDT by ansel12 ((Libertarianism offers the transitory concepts and dialogue to move from conservatism, to liberalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Norseman

Where did I say that?

As far as you pushing the homosexual agenda, you are running one of the strongest thread on we have seen to date, you search for every made up thing and stretch that you can find.

If some of us here weren’t correcting your dishonest posts, this would be a pure, pro gay agenda thread.


42 posted on 03/16/2014 6:19:25 PM PDT by ansel12 ((Libertarianism offers the transitory concepts and dialogue to move from conservatism, to liberalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Norseman

The option you are exercising is ignoring post 32.

You oppose this?
“”Only conservative politicians can end the libertarian/leftist agenda of federal acceptance of the gay agenda and abortion.””

Rand who is a Senator voting on federal policy and law and is campaigning for federal office as he signals his rejection of social conservatism?

You aren’t interested in ending federally performed abortions, and federally recognized gay marriage in the military and federal employment and immigration, and gays in the military?


43 posted on 03/16/2014 6:26:37 PM PDT by ansel12 ((Libertarianism offers the transitory concepts and dialogue to move from conservatism, to liberalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Norseman
ansel, a few days ago you said you wouldn’t talk to someone who put words in your mouth.

That is a claim that I would like to see the quote for.

44 posted on 03/16/2014 10:36:51 PM PDT by ansel12 ((Libertarianism offers the transitory concepts and dialogue to move from conservatism, to liberalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson