Posted on 01/31/2012 12:00:06 PM PST by presidio9
The first primaries of 2012 are complete, but the fight over the proper role of government continues. The question before GOP primary voters is who best reflects their own answer to that question, and then, who is best suited to make that case to the American people?
A clear winner has yet to emerge, but there is little question about who has captured the loyalty of young Republican voters on this issue. Although finishing fourth overall, Ron Paul once again won the youth vote in South Carolina, winning 31% of ages 18-29, compared to Newt Gingrich who won 28%. Paul’s appeal, or more accurately, the appeal of Paul’s limited government message, is a key story to emerge from the Republican primaries.
There’s no mistaking the trend.
Mitt Romney won the New Hampshire primary, getting approximately 39% of the total vote. Ron Paul finished second with 23%, Jon Huntsman finished third with 17%, and Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum each won about 9% of the vote.
Yet young voters would have picked a different winner. According to Fox News exit polls, in New Hampshire, Paul won nearly half (46%) of the votes of people ages 18-29, while Romney won second place with just 26%.
Paul also won the youth vote in Iowa. In the Hawkeye State almost half (48%) of the Republican caucus goers ages 18-29 supported Paul, compared to 23% for the otherwise victorious Santorum, and 14% for Romney.
What is so appealing about Paul to young voters? One answer is that Paul has been the most outspoken candidate defending the importance of free enterprise and the limited role of government. And he has had a
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
So, it is your position that fetuses have no rights against exposure to the toxins of recreations drugs. Got it. You're pro-abortion. Got it.
OMG, you are so obtuse.
Conservatives don't drink alcohol?
OMG, you are so obtuse.
That's what all those books said?
So, it is your position that fetuses have no rights against exposure to the toxins of recreations drugs.
How shall we defend their rights against exposure to the toxin alcohol? By banning it?
Apples and oranges compared to LSD, heroin, coke etc.
We straights know exactly the implication, what "altered mental states" points to in common usage, illicit drug use. Druggies use that term, live for that concept.
You really dont talk about "altered mental states" when having a Budweiser.
Common sense goes a long way.
Why Paulitards fail.
And why Conservatives have never supported the idea of drug legalization, just off the reservation libertarians and addicts.
Conservatives don't drink alcohol?
All the time.
Apples and oranges compared to LSD, heroin, coke etc.
We straights know exactly the implication, what "altered mental states" points to in common usage, illicit drug use. Druggies use that term, live for that concept.
You really dont talk about "altered mental states" when having a Budweiser.
But you get one nonetheless. Is that not a conservative thing to do?
Please now regal me with your quaint intellectual sounding retort, that is one of my favorite things from Paulitards, that posturing and such.
Use to see that in College to with a lot of pot smoking and other mind altering drug user types. They always had “intellectual” rationals for using drugs.
Always amused me because they could quote Shakespeare flawlessly but everyone around would simple be thinking “hey the pothead actually got through it."
Good luck with that Alcohol / Heroin equivalence argument thing bro, its been tried before but maybe you'll pull it off, folks are getting dumber in general.
Keep it between the rails and don't let the man find your stash.
Peace out dude...
Face the failure that you leave to your children's, children's children.
Step aside, here comes the next generation!
And of course, have another drink!
He’s the only candidate telling the truth about the unsustainability of big government and the welfare state. The rest are either denying or downplaying it.
True indeed, but I don't think that is his principal appeal to the young people forming the bulk of his support. Still, it's a good thing they're listening to him, as he might correct much of what they learned at institutes of higher brainwashing.
Conservatives don't drink alcohol?
All the time.
Apples and oranges compared to LSD, heroin, coke etc.
We straights know exactly the implication, what "altered mental states" points to in common usage, illicit drug use. Druggies use that term, live for that concept.
You really dont talk about "altered mental states" when having a Budweiser.
But you get one nonetheless. Is that not a conservative thing to do?
Good luck with that Alcohol / Heroin equivalence argument
I've made no such argument, but merely pointed out that alcohol, regardless of the words one uses, chemically alters one's mental state for personal enjoyment. You implied that such alteration was not a conservative thing to do - so do you stand by the logical implication of your claim, namely that drinking enough alcohol to feel an effect ("relaxing" or "unwinding") is not a conservative thing to do?
Really lay off the whatever your wackado drug of choice is.
In the face of your distortions of my argument, I'm restating and elaborating on my actual argument. Don't like it? Stop distorting my argument.
“nobody gets to tell me what to believe in or what to do” so apt in my case. As a young person I often felt I had to remind my older associates/relatives that I had as much right to the roadway of life as any older person. Of course this attitude was tempered quite a bit as I went through infantry training and overseas duty in WWII. After that enlightening experience my attitude changed towards realization that the world,i.e. my relatives and associates or others, did not owe me any part of their roadway. Today my view has changed somewhat so that I feel I do not have to and will not get off the roadway for any person ,old or young, who believes I shouldn’t be there.
CHONG: Who is it?
CHEECH: It’s me, Dave. Open up, man, I got the stuff.
(More knocks)
CHONG: Who is it?
CHEECH: It’s me, Dave, man. Open up, I got the stuff.
CHONG: Who?
CHEECH: It’s, Dave, man. Open up, I think the cops saw me come in here.
(More knocks)
CHONG: Who is it?
CHEECH: It’s, Dave, man. Will you open up, I got the stuff with me.
CHONG: Who?
CHEECH: Dave, man. Open up.
CHONG: Dave?
CHEECH: Yeah, Dave. C’mon, man, open up, I think the cops saw me.
CHONG: Dave’s not here.
CHEECH: No, man, I’m Dave, man.
(Sharp knocks at the door)
CHEECH: Hey, c’mon, man.
CHONG: Who is it?
CHEECH: It’s Dave, man. Will you open up? I got the stuff with me.
CHONG: Who?
CHEECH: Dave, man. Open up.
CHONG: Dave?
CHEECH: Yeah, Dave.
CHONG: Dave’s not here.
CHEECH: What the hell? No, man, I am Dave, man. Will you...
(More knocks)
CHEECH: C’mon! Open up the door, will you? I got the stuff with me, I think the cops saw me.
CHONG: Who is it?
CHEECH: Oh, what the hell is it...c’mon. Open up the door! It’s Dave!
CHONG: Who?
CHEECH: Dave! D-A-V-E! Will you open up the goddam door!
CHONG: Dave?
CHEECH: Yeah, Dave!
CHONG: Dave?
CHEECH: Right, man. Dave. Now will you open up the door?
CHONG: Dave’s not here
Sadly I am not a drug war supporter.
I did look at the thread. By druggie standards you are right. By the standards of reality I think the mules are quiet comfortable....
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.