Posted on 02/20/2010 2:42:51 PM PST by onyx
Ron Paul Wins CPAC 2012 Presidential Straw Poll
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Ron Paul:They're terrorists because we're occupiers...
The Paulistas are on the prowl and taking over things.
There’s a “get out of Afghanistan” guy running against an incumbent Republican for state representative in my county.
If the words they post on their national party website are what is attracting their base, maybe we should look at that and see where there is common ground.
I am not trying to convert the whole party, just gain support of people there who do believe in less Federal government, in one which honors its Constitutional mandates and stays out of the rest of matters reserved to the people and the states.
As for "gay marriage", that isn't the government's business, it is a church matter (and no church I go to will support the idea). Government has no business in the marriage business anyway.
ANd as for the 'platform' items you listed, we are getting all that now with the Obamites in office.
Of course marriage is government business, people can’t just decide that legal marriage is whatever they want.
I don’t want homosexual marriages and Islamic polygamy made legal in the United States.
Churches do not decide what marriage is or else the Mosques and satanic churches and homosexual churches would be in charge of defining marriage in America.
That is why freerepublic exists, to fight that liberal agenda, including your "gay marriage".
Right. We need a Fresh Face with no baggage. Guess the Republican Party doesn’t know where to find such an animal.
You couldn’t put a gun to my head and force me to vote for RINO Mitt Romney. P.U.
LOL. and laughable.
So if I tell you that if you let your kids keep tweaking the nose of the lunatic that lives across the street there will probably be some sort of “blowback,” I’m WRONG? Even when I send support to you in finding the looney after he kills one of them one day? I don’t THINK so. CIVILIZED people don’t allow provocative behavior to set them off like that. Likewise, equally civilized people do not engage in provocative behavior around lunatics. They also don’t ignore warnings given by people “in the know” about the loonies, or forbid the sharing of information. The GOVERNMENT of the United States does have some degree of culpability in the matter, largely dating back to the Clinton regime and prior, for ignoring warnings that were probably quite clear, and for not allowing intelligence information to be shared where it was needed and would do some good. Also for not taking into account the sensitivity, if you will, of the lunatics of the region and for allowing us to appear WEAK to them. But the “Truther” position that would have plots within plots is NOT what Dr. Paul subscribes to and by this time even YOU should know that.
As far as “Jew hating,” Dr. Paul is a devout Christian, to the best of my knowledge, and Christians are probably the biggest SUPPORTERS of Israel and the Jews that exist. My understanding of Dr. Paul’s position is that he abhors any and ALL foreign aid going into the Middle East — as well as anywhere else in the world — which would include Israel as well as the islamic countries. That is a position which is in agreement with my own. I believe that Israel should abjure any further “aid” coming from the U.S. government because the strings that ALWAYS come with it tend to force Israel to do many things which are NOT in their self interest... such as “land for peace” schemes which always favor the Palestinians and their backers over ISRAEL’S interests. If it continues, one fine day we’re going to wake up to see Muzzies at the gates of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv and the other Israeli cities and the Jews on the brink of extinction. THAT would be utterly UNACCEPTABLE, yet the persistence of “conservatives” in pushing “aid” and strings on Israel or we’re anti-Semitic is pure balderdash that contributes to the unrest in the area.
Were Israel NOT tied down by us, they would likely have long ago been invited to a REAL peace table by the Arabs who, quite wisely, would not want their collective asses handed to them by Israel. That’s my take on it and I believe that Dr. Paul probably has similar sentiments, contrary to the lies you persist in spreading.
Not mine, pal. I am dead set against defiling the sacrament of Holy Matrimony with such a perverse parody.
I think God made his feeling toward the subject pretty clear at Sodom and Gommorah--the two Biblical cities which have not been found--by wiping them off the map.
Weak field.
If marriage had remained a church matter, maybe more people would have been in a church often enough that there would not be any satanic churches or homosexual churches, just maybe more people would have had their children exposed to something other than that crap at an early age. But where there is nothing, something will fill the void.
But God gave us the choice to serve Him or not, the results will reflect that.
But, whatever the state says, marriage is between a man and a woman, in the eyes of God, and no Government has the authority to change that. Just watch, they are going to try, and it is because of the Government that God has been kicked out of so many public venues that the other ideas are gaining any toehold in our culture.
But look to your government for salvation if you must. You won't find it there.
The history of marriage suggests the state has long had a substantial interest in defining marriage sufficiently to be able to address the legal effects of procreative activity, such as paternity, survivorship, default rules of estate transfer, not to mention the legal and social obligations of raising children. That is why state marriage regulations have traditionally focused on heterosexual marriages; they are, by volume and by character, the most important source of the state’s most valuable resource, the next generation of citizens. Therefore, to the extent a state understands and values its own continuity, the state will naturally be concerned with the most natural context for sustainable procreation: Marriage.
As for Libertarianism, it has two basic flavors. One is more of a natural law, constitutional orientation, and the other more toward anarchy. I suspect the natural law camp has an easier time allowing the state to regulate marriage. Whereas the anarchistic would tend to revere individual autonomy as the supreme good and thus resist any such regulation.
Likewise, with abortion, the tendency to absolute individual autonomy, combined with a low view of the unborn child, tends to tilt libertarians toward unrestricted abortion. Our own libertarian candidate for governor, Lex Green, is so conflicted on the matter he says he is neither pro-life nor pro-abortion. Huh? Yet in reference to capital punishment, in the same radio interview, he said he was pro-life. Pro-life for capital felons, and “don’t care” about unborn children? That is tragically incoherent.
No, libertarianism may be a friendly force for free markets in theory, but its permissive nature on the social issues, if fully fleshed out as social norms, just makes our culture worse, more dependent on the state, and less likely to be able to sustain a free market. It is, IMHO, an inherently self-defeating system.
I vote for a traditional, natural law conservatism that recognizes both the rights of the individual and the beneficial role of government, at the highest level possible, in defending the rights of the recently procreated, whether it concerns the stability of traditional family structure that nurtures them, or the more basic issue of not being killed in the womb.
LOL, I’m only looking for the government not to let each church or mosque impose it’s own definitions of marriage and eliminate age restrictions like you want.
“In 1996, Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). It prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriages and also allows a state to ignore gay marriages performed outside its borders.”
He never said that, he never said that, yes, and he never said that. Next.
Note, ectopic pregnancies and fallopian pregnancies are not in the womb, but outside the boundaries, anatomically speaking. Only when the continuation of the pregnancy will result in the death of both the mother and the baby is the termination of pregnancy justifiable.
As for: Therefore, to the extent a state understands and values its own continuity, the state will naturally be concerned with the most natural context for sustainable procreation: Marriage
These matters were handled by the churches at one time. If you dig far enough back into geneology, the records of birth, death, marriages and such fall primarily into church records, not government ones.
Legal matters of property were recorded by government, primarily for the purpose of taxation. Heirs and assigns were recorded for the purpose of recovering such debts as may have been owed the state, and for the purpose of levying taxes upon them subsequent to the demise of the former owner.
While the church may have been concerned with the welfare of the children, such has not been the concern of the State until the last hundred years or so. Legal obligations were, again concerned with taxation and succession, moral obligations were the focus of the Parish.
Marriage regulationa have focused on heterosexual marriage because that has heretofore been the only variety recognized by either church or state, as it should be. It is only in the past 40 years or so that perversion has supplanted the presence of open reference to God in public and even private institutions to the degree that homosexuality has become an 'open' issue at all.
I would note that the attempts by the state to take over the responsibilities of the church have only led to a variety of 'morals' which can only survive as long as they are supported by popular vote. The Church has scripture to guide it, and without the convolutions of twisting the teachings of the Bible cannot condone anything but heterosexual relationships.
LOL, I’m only looking for the government not to let each church or mosque impose it’s own definitions of marriage and eliminate age restrictions like you want.
That was a badly phrased sentence that I wrote to you. I meant that you want individual churches to define marriage, not that you want age restrictions removed, although that would be the result if you got your desire of keeping the state out of marriage and letting churches write their own rules for marriage.
He, in fact, predicted 9/11 would happen as a result of Clinton’s foreign policy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZtPzOukjZA
If Ron Paul isn’t conservative, then there is no principle left in conservatism worth fighting for. End of story.
“Ron and the Paulettes have spammed straw polls before.
It’s what they do.”
that’s different than Freeping a poll, right?
Well, the history of state regulation of marriage and its points of contact with legal systems actually goes back as far as Hammurabi. The problem using the argument that it is strictly a province of the church is that the church, in various periods and locations, was for all intents and purposes coextensive with the government. Our modern quasi-bifurcation of church and state is a relatively recent phenomena and took a long time to evolve to its current condition, and I would contend that part of what is happening is the modern state is attempting, with some difficulty, to learn how to function in an area where the absence of religious governance is making the procreative interests of the state more difficult to secure. Therefore, I would still contend that, as long as natural law is the basis, government may still reasonably and beneficially involve itself with questions of marriage.
Consider the consequences if it does not. There is a dynamic of mutual exclusivity in the marital paradigm shift from primarily procreative and thus exclusively heterosexual, to the postmodern notion of arbitrary and primarily pleasure driven relationships. In the former, there are natural human propensities that foster a self-sustaining system that is beneficial to the state. The latter, as demonstrated by the Netherlands, tends over time to a disintegration of the whole concept of marriage. Therefore, if the state does not take sides, the private parties will end up in a winner takes all struggle, with no referee. Heterosexual practices are already actively being deconstructed by, among other things, carefully calculated lawsuits, of which the net effect is not the increase of equal rights but the diminishing of the protected status of the procreative paradigm, which in turn results in higher risk of harm to children.
This is a nontrivial effect and should be a consideration in what position the state takes. A state position of theoretical neutrality amounts to a decision of the state to do harm by doing nothing. Therefore, neutrality, as posited by some libertarians, is not an option.
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.