100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Why Dems Should Vote RP | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
By Robin Koerner | Huffington Post
Snip: "I'm having difficulty seeing how a Democrat who voted for Obama (whom I supported) for the right reasons in 2008 can in good conscience do so again given that there is another candidate who has been consistent in his opposition to all of these things -- not just in words but in deeds. If you've read my other pieces, you already know who he is. But if not, you should also know that Ron Paul has voted to let states make their own laws on abortion, gay marriage etc. and to let individuals follow their own social conscience -- even when he disagrees with them (as I disagree with him on some of these issues). In other words, he is consistent in his beliefs in civil liberty. If you are a Democrat, and you sit tight and vote Democrat again "because you've always been a Democrat" or because you think that some group with which you identity will benefit more from Democrat programs than a Republican one, then that is up to you, and I wish you well. But don't you dare pretend that you are motivated primarily by peace, civil rights or a government that treats people equally. That Ron Paul, who has been standing up for these principles quietly for half a lifetime, happens to be a member of the Republican party is a lot less important than the principles that we should be voting on." http://www.dailypaul.com/170030/huffpo-why-anti-war-democrats-should-vote-ron-paul |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Thu 10/20/11 03:41 PM
|
|
I consider principles important, to a degree, I consider practicality more important.
That is to say, a candidate may BELIEVE in equality and flowers and roses,, but what they will actually be able to ACCOMPLISH in their role as President may have little to do with any of those personal principles they hold. as a better example, I consider myself christian, but alot of the 'principle' talk that Bush campaigned with were not things that , as president, he would have much to do with. I wanted more about the things a PRESIDENT is more directly involved with, like security and economy and education and healthcare,,,etc,, that a candidate doesnt think abortion or adultery is right, has nothing to do IMHO with what their job will be in the white house. I really have to see the debates when it gets down to the two candidates, to see which one seems 'better suited' in my eyes. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By Robin Koerner | Huffington Post Snip: "I'm having difficulty seeing how a Democrat who voted for Obama (whom I supported) for the right reasons in 2008 can in good conscience do so again given that there is another candidate who has been consistent in his opposition to all of these things -- not just in words but in deeds. If you've read my other pieces, you already know who he is. But if not, you should also know that Ron Paul has voted to let states make their own laws on abortion, gay marriage etc. and to let individuals follow their own social conscience -- even when he disagrees with them (as I disagree with him on some of these issues). In other words, he is consistent in his beliefs in civil liberty. If you are a Democrat, and you sit tight and vote Democrat again "because you've always been a Democrat" or because you think that some group with which you identity will benefit more from Democrat programs than a Republican one, then that is up to you, and I wish you well. But don't you dare pretend that you are motivated primarily by peace, civil rights or a government that treats people equally. That Ron Paul, who has been standing up for these principles quietly for half a lifetime, happens to be a member of the Republican party is a lot less important than the principles that we should be voting on." http://www.dailypaul.com/170030/huffpo-why-anti-war-democrats-should-vote-ron-paul Well, if all I cared about was his war policy, that would be great. He is a lunatic at other levels. Granted, the president doesn't have dictatorial power but his power of suggestion as seen by the Bush fiasco can lean things the wrong way. We do not need to lean with Ron Paul. He is not a viable candidate. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, if all I cared about was his war policy, that would be great. He is a lunatic at other levels. Granted, the president doesn't have dictatorial power but his power of suggestion as seen by the Bush fiasco can lean things the wrong way. We do not need to lean with Ron Paul. He is not a viable candidate. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, if all I cared about was his war policy, that would be great. He is a lunatic at other levels. Granted, the president doesn't have dictatorial power but his power of suggestion as seen by the Bush fiasco can lean things the wrong way. We do not need to lean with Ron Paul. He is not a viable candidate. Just like your post implied "who" should vote rp, I was implying the same. So does that make you and the author of your post Gestapo and liberal?? Apply the same rules to me that you do yourself, thanks in advance. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By Robin Koerner | Huffington Post Snip: "I'm having difficulty seeing how a Democrat who voted for Obama (whom I supported) for the right reasons in 2008 can in good conscience do so again given that there is another candidate who has been consistent in his opposition to all of these things -- not just in words but in deeds. If you've read my other pieces, you already know who he is. But if not, you should also know that Ron Paul has voted to let states make their own laws on abortion, gay marriage etc. and to let individuals follow their own social conscience -- even when he disagrees with them (as I disagree with him on some of these issues). In other words, he is consistent in his beliefs in civil liberty. If you are a Democrat, and you sit tight and vote Democrat again "because you've always been a Democrat" or because you think that some group with which you identity will benefit more from Democrat programs than a Republican one, then that is up to you, and I wish you well. But don't you dare pretend that you are motivated primarily by peace, civil rights or a government that treats people equally. That Ron Paul, who has been standing up for these principles quietly for half a lifetime, happens to be a member of the Republican party is a lot less important than the principles that we should be voting on." http://www.dailypaul.com/170030/huffpo-why-anti-war-democrats-should-vote-ron-paul Well, if all I cared about was his war policy, that would be great. He is a lunatic at other levels. Granted, the president doesn't have dictatorial power but his power of suggestion as seen by the Bush fiasco can lean things the wrong way. We do not need to lean with Ron Paul. He is not a viable candidate. What kind of logic is that? He's not a "lunatic" on any level (unless you are coming from the perspective of a war profiteer or a corporate crony). He's been accurate for more than 30 years.  Unlike Obama and the current GOP contenders, he actually practices what he preaches.   Even Kucinich worked with Ron on legislation when Ron was in the House. You really need to get over your partisan streak and think rationally. (If Ron was on the dem ticket I'd vote for him too) Ron is extremely viable! He consistently polls in the top tier and gets more in donations than any other candidate (he also gets more donations from the troops than any other candidate).
Ron Paul 2012! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By Robin Koerner | Huffington Post Snip: "I'm having difficulty seeing how a Democrat who voted for Obama (whom I supported) for the right reasons in 2008 can in good conscience do so again given that there is another candidate who has been consistent in his opposition to all of these things -- not just in words but in deeds. If you've read my other pieces, you already know who he is. But if not, you should also know that Ron Paul has voted to let states make their own laws on abortion, gay marriage etc. and to let individuals follow their own social conscience -- even when he disagrees with them (as I disagree with him on some of these issues). In other words, he is consistent in his beliefs in civil liberty. If you are a Democrat, and you sit tight and vote Democrat again "because you've always been a Democrat" or because you think that some group with which you identity will benefit more from Democrat programs than a Republican one, then that is up to you, and I wish you well. But don't you dare pretend that you are motivated primarily by peace, civil rights or a government that treats people equally. That Ron Paul, who has been standing up for these principles quietly for half a lifetime, happens to be a member of the Republican party is a lot less important than the principles that we should be voting on." http://www.dailypaul.com/170030/huffpo-why-anti-war-democrats-should-vote-ron-paul
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By Robin Koerner | Huffington Post Snip: "I'm having difficulty seeing how a Democrat who voted for Obama (whom I supported) for the right reasons in 2008 can in good conscience do so again given that there is another candidate who has been consistent in his opposition to all of these things -- not just in words but in deeds. If you've read my other pieces, you already know who he is. But if not, you should also know that Ron Paul has voted to let states make their own laws on abortion, gay marriage etc. and to let individuals follow their own social conscience -- even when he disagrees with them (as I disagree with him on some of these issues). In other words, he is consistent in his beliefs in civil liberty. If you are a Democrat, and you sit tight and vote Democrat again "because you've always been a Democrat" or because you think that some group with which you identity will benefit more from Democrat programs than a Republican one, then that is up to you, and I wish you well. But don't you dare pretend that you are motivated primarily by peace, civil rights or a government that treats people equally. That Ron Paul, who has been standing up for these principles quietly for half a lifetime, happens to be a member of the Republican party is a lot less important than the principles that we should be voting on." http://www.dailypaul.com/170030/huffpo-why-anti-war-democrats-should-vote-ron-paul
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By Robin Koerner | Huffington Post Snip: "I'm having difficulty seeing how a Democrat who voted for Obama (whom I supported) for the right reasons in 2008 can in good conscience do so again given that there is another candidate who has been consistent in his opposition to all of these things -- not just in words but in deeds. If you've read my other pieces, you already know who he is. But if not, you should also know that Ron Paul has voted to let states make their own laws on abortion, gay marriage etc. and to let individuals follow their own social conscience -- even when he disagrees with them (as I disagree with him on some of these issues). In other words, he is consistent in his beliefs in civil liberty. If you are a Democrat, and you sit tight and vote Democrat again "because you've always been a Democrat" or because you think that some group with which you identity will benefit more from Democrat programs than a Republican one, then that is up to you, and I wish you well. But don't you dare pretend that you are motivated primarily by peace, civil rights or a government that treats people equally. That Ron Paul, who has been standing up for these principles quietly for half a lifetime, happens to be a member of the Republican party is a lot less important than the principles that we should be voting on." http://www.dailypaul.com/170030/huffpo-why-anti-war-democrats-should-vote-ron-paul Well, if all I cared about was his war policy, that would be great. He is a lunatic at other levels. Granted, the president doesn't have dictatorial power but his power of suggestion as seen by the Bush fiasco can lean things the wrong way. We do not need to lean with Ron Paul. He is not a viable candidate. What kind of logic is that? He's not a "lunatic" on any level (unless you are coming from the perspective of a war profiteer or a corporate crony). He's been accurate for more than 30 years. Unlike Obama and the current GOP contenders, he actually practices what he preaches. Even Kucinich worked with Ron on legislation when Ron was in the House. You really need to get over your partisan streak and think rationally. (If Ron was on the dem ticket I'd vote for him too) Ron is extremely viable! He consistently polls in the top tier and gets more in donations than any other candidate (he also gets more donations from the troops than any other candidate).
Ron Paul 2012!
If Ron was a Dem he would be too looney to vote for. If Ron was on an Independent he would be too looney to vote for. Ron Paul is not a viable candidate and is wasting time and other peoples money in his failing to be one. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, if all I cared about was his war policy, that would be great. He is a lunatic at other levels. Granted, the president doesn't have dictatorial power but his power of suggestion as seen by the Bush fiasco can lean things the wrong way. We do not need to lean with Ron Paul. He is not a viable candidate. Just like your post implied "who" should vote rp, I was implying the same. So does that make you and the author of your post Gestapo and liberal?? Apply the same rules to me that you do yourself, thanks in advance. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ron Paul is a lunatic, racist and an idiot. If Republicans want to lose this election they will nominate Paul(which by the way will never happen).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
George Wallace was a "states rights" man too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
George Wallace was a "states rights" man too. So was Robert Byrd and Ross Barnett. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ron Paul FTW 2012
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fine...lol..if you people want more of this same BS we're being force-fed now, then so be it. Every candidate has their flaws. It's just that I think RP has quite a few less flaws than the rest of the field. Couple that to PROVEN honesty and integrity (despite what all you haters say, official documents--e.g. voting records--don't lie) I am left with the one candidate who is worthy of my yes vote. Ron Paul.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I consider principles important, to a degree, I consider practicality more important. That is to say, a candidate may BELIEVE in equality and flowers and roses,, but what they will actually be able to ACCOMPLISH in their role as President may have little to do with any of those personal principles they hold. as a better example, I consider myself christian, but alot of the 'principle' talk that Bush campaigned with were not things that , as president, he would have much to do with. I wanted more about the things a PRESIDENT is more directly involved with, like security and economy and education and healthcare,,,etc,, that a candidate doesnt think abortion or adultery is right, has nothing to do IMHO with what their job will be in the white house. I really have to see the debates when it gets down to the two candidates, to see which one seems 'better suited' in my eyes. i'm pretty sure we already know who's "better suited" in your eyes... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I consider principles important, to a degree, I consider practicality more important. That is to say, a candidate may BELIEVE in equality and flowers and roses,, but what they will actually be able to ACCOMPLISH in their role as President may have little to do with any of those personal principles they hold. as a better example, I consider myself christian, but alot of the 'principle' talk that Bush campaigned with were not things that , as president, he would have much to do with. I wanted more about the things a PRESIDENT is more directly involved with, like security and economy and education and healthcare,,,etc,, that a candidate doesnt think abortion or adultery is right, has nothing to do IMHO with what their job will be in the white house. I really have to see the debates when it gets down to the two candidates, to see which one seems 'better suited' in my eyes. i'm pretty sure we already know who's "better suited" in your eyes... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I consider principles important, to a degree, I consider practicality more important. That is to say, a candidate may BELIEVE in equality and flowers and roses,, but what they will actually be able to ACCOMPLISH in their role as President may have little to do with any of those personal principles they hold. as a better example, I consider myself christian, but alot of the 'principle' talk that Bush campaigned with were not things that , as president, he would have much to do with. I wanted more about the things a PRESIDENT is more directly involved with, like security and economy and education and healthcare,,,etc,, that a candidate doesnt think abortion or adultery is right, has nothing to do IMHO with what their job will be in the white house. I really have to see the debates when it gets down to the two candidates, to see which one seems 'better suited' in my eyes. i'm pretty sure we already know who's "better suited" in your eyes... IM amazed at how much people think they know about each other in these threads,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I consider principles important, to a degree, I consider practicality more important. That is to say, a candidate may BELIEVE in equality and flowers and roses,, but what they will actually be able to ACCOMPLISH in their role as President may have little to do with any of those personal principles they hold. as a better example, I consider myself christian, but alot of the 'principle' talk that Bush campaigned with were not things that , as president, he would have much to do with. I wanted more about the things a PRESIDENT is more directly involved with, like security and economy and education and healthcare,,,etc,, that a candidate doesnt think abortion or adultery is right, has nothing to do IMHO with what their job will be in the white house. I really have to see the debates when it gets down to the two candidates, to see which one seems 'better suited' in my eyes. i'm pretty sure we already know who's "better suited" in your eyes... IM amazed at how much people think they know about each other in these threads,,,, haha you've said it enough, not much thinking to it...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I consider principles important, to a degree, I consider practicality more important. That is to say, a candidate may BELIEVE in equality and flowers and roses,, but what they will actually be able to ACCOMPLISH in their role as President may have little to do with any of those personal principles they hold. as a better example, I consider myself christian, but alot of the 'principle' talk that Bush campaigned with were not things that , as president, he would have much to do with. I wanted more about the things a PRESIDENT is more directly involved with, like security and economy and education and healthcare,,,etc,, that a candidate doesnt think abortion or adultery is right, has nothing to do IMHO with what their job will be in the white house. I really have to see the debates when it gets down to the two candidates, to see which one seems 'better suited' in my eyes. i'm pretty sure we already know who's "better suited" in your eyes... IM amazed at how much people think they know about each other in these threads,,,, Readin what people post in these threads is like reading an autobiography! |
|
|
|
|
