# What do Republicans think?



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

This is one of the few places I visit regularly at which I can be confident in hearing from Republicans, so I thought I'd throw out a couple of questions.

1. Can you support John McCain for President, or do some of his apparent negatives (flip-flops on social and religious issues, hostility to some of Bush's people, support for campaign finance reform) pose too high a barrier for you?

2. Would you consider that Giuliani's apparently socially liberal positions on issues like gay rights and abortion, or the likelihood that the people close to him share those views, disqualify him from your support or the support of the Republican base?

3. Given the conservative Christian base of the Republican Party, will Mitt Romney's religion and recent liberal social positions be a barrier to his choice in the primaries?

4. If not one of the above three, who is your favored candidate?

Thanks, gents.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> This is one of the few places I visit regularly at which I can be confident in hearing from Republicans, so I thought I'd throw out a couple of questions.
> 
> 1. Can you support John McCain for President, or do some of his apparent negatives (flip-flops on social and religious issues, hostility to some of Bush's people, support for campaign finance reform) pose too high a barrier for you?
> 
> ...


Jack,

1. McCain, while not my first choice, would still get my support in the general election. His positions are still better than any of the likely Dems (Clinton, Obama, Edwards)

2. I personally have abosolutely NO problems with Rudy's social liberal positions. As long as he continues a strong pro-business econ policy and maintains a tough stance in foreign policy, he'll get my vote.
I'm pro-choice, so abortion is a non-issue for me. Also, don't give a flying fig about gay marriage. Right now my vote is based on economics and foreign policy.

As to support from the Republican base, well..., let just say there will be a major problem for Rudy. The Religious Right will get their panties in a bunch re social issues and Rudy. Right now, while Rudy is in the lead in the polls, most of the base are not aware of the social issue positions of Rudy. This is a major problem for Rudy to maintain his lead. See Tom Bevan's comments at RCP, regarding a WNBC/Marist poll (https://www.maristpoll.marist.edu/usapolls/CP070219.PDF):

"The second question concerns Rudy Giuliani:

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani is a pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro-gay rights Republican. Would the fact that Rudy Giuliani has these positions be a major factor, a minor factor, or not a factor in deciding if you would vote for Rudy Giuliani for president in 2008?
Among registered Republicans, 32% said Rudy's position on these issues would be a "major factor," 40% said they would be a "minor factor," and 28% they would "not be a factor." That represents a rather substantial shift versus the Marist poll from December 2006. Among Republicans in that survey (same question, exact same wording), 47% said Rudy's positions as "a pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro-gay rights Republican" would be a "major factor," 31% said they would be a "minor factor," and 22% said his views would "not be a factor."

Assuming those citing Rudy's views on social issues as a "major factor" are doing so in the negative (i.e. a major factor against his candidacy), the 15-point drop in that category among Republicans in the last couple of months would seem to be a significant, and positive, development for Giuliani.

However, despite that seeming piece of good news, when Republicans were asked whether they'd be more like or less likely to vote for Rudy based on those positions, 36% said "more likely," 48% said "less likely," and 16% said it would make "no difference."

In other words, even though it's impossible to know how this national survey of registered Republicans compares to the make up of the caucus goers and primary voters in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, it's evident that Rudy still has a long way to go to make the sale."

The 48% less likely number is a big hurdle. I would be surprised if he gets the nomination. Hope I am wrong.

3. Mitt has problems with the base as well. For alot of Christian Conservatives, the Mormon thing is a problem. Mormons aren't seen as true Christians. It is funny, since most Mormons behave more conservatively than most regular Christians. They are focused on family and clean living. One guy I knew at law school, had a special filter on their tap water to purify it, and wouldn't drink caffeinated beverages, much less alcohol. If Mitt was a Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian etc, this would not be an issue.

4. As I mentioned above, at this point I support Rudy. However, I have no idea who will get the nomination. Probably McCain. Republicans aren't really into dark horse candidates, so I don't see one emerging. McCain is probably the safest bet. You know what you are getting.

My boss wants Newt to get the nomination. I would be absolutely shocked if that happened.

Cheers


----------



## 16128 (Feb 8, 2005)

JRR said:


> 2. I personally have abosolutely NO problems with Rudy's social liberal positions. As long as he continues a strong pro-business econ policy and maintains a tough stance in foreign policy, he'll get my vote.
> I'm pro-choice, so abortion is a non-issue for me. Also, don't give a flying fig about gay marriage. Right now my vote is based on economics and foreign policy.


Me too, exactly.

The socially conservative Republicans have had their time. Move over!


----------



## R_Ingber (Feb 21, 2007)

I have to say that McCain is the Republicans only option for victoy. Giuliani, while a good candidate (because he is "America's Mayor") is to socially liberal and lack foreign policy experience. I think he is faking a presidential run in order to get a cabinet position or possibly a vice presidential nomination. All the money he is raising can purchase, I mean be donated to another candidate.

Mitt Romney, like Giuliani strays away from the republican base to much. America has only elected 1 Christian President, every other one has fit the mold we are not about to break the mold, this applies to Mormons, women, and African Americans.

I also have to agree that the Republican front runner (McCain), clearly is a better choice then the Democratic contenders (Obama/Clinton).

I would love to see McCain get the nomination.

Read my politics blog at www.InformedStudents.BlogSpot.com :teacha:


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

As someone who is to the right of the Republican Party, I think McCain will be perceived as too unstable and too old (not related--he was unstable before he was old) and Guliani as too liberal and with too many skeletons in his closet. I do think Romney will have a problem with anti-Mormon sentiment.

I see that Ron Paul filed papers for an exploratory committee. He's unelectable, but that's generally the sort of guys I vote for.


----------



## A Questionable Gentleman (Jun 16, 2006)

Pretty much on board with JRR's analysis and positions. Lots of Republicans are just waiting for the center-right to rise again.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

No, I can't stand McCain.

Yes. Speaking for myself it doesn't disqualify him for me, but I think it does with the nominating base.

No, I think Mitt Romney is doing a good job of selling himself as the conservative and conservative values candidate.

I like Newt, but I think he won't run, maybe just to get in some debates. Right now it's looking like Romney to me.


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

I really do not think that the Republicans can win the Presidency without the socially conservative/religious right vote. This is the reason that McCain has spoken at religious universities, and the reason Romney submitted to an inquisition by religious media groups this week. It is a problem for them, but it is also a problem for the Democrats. 

According to polls I've read in books by both Democrats and Republicans, the majority of the electorate is socially conservative (Republican) and economically conservative (Democratic). In writing this I refer to the more traditional definition of economic liberalisism meaning little (if any) intrusion by the government in economic freedoms. In my opinion, the Republicans only qualify as economically liberal in comparison to the Democrats.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> This is one of the few places I visit regularly at which I can be confident in hearing from Republicans, so I thought I'd throw out a couple of questions.
> 
> 1. Can you support John McCain for President, or do some of his apparent negatives (flip-flops on social and religious issues, hostility to some of Bush's people, support for campaign finance reform) pose too high a barrier for you?


Wouldn't vote for Mc Cain- seems like more of the same IMO



> 2. Would you consider that Giuliani's apparently socially liberal positions on issues like gay rights and abortion, or the likelihood that the people close to him share those views, disqualify him from your support or the support of the Republican base?


Giuliani is a joke (Democrat in Republican clothing) worse than McCain IMO



> 3. Given the conservative Christian base of the Republican Party, will Mitt Romney's religion and recent liberal social positions be a barrier to his choice in the primaries?


Can't say that Romney is trustworthy either. Being Mormon can be seen as a plus if he sticks to his guns- but he's not.



> 4. If not one of the above three, who is your favored candidate?


I like Sam Brownback.



> Thanks, gents.


You're welcome, Jack.


----------



## CCabot (Oct 4, 2006)

R_Ingber said:


> Mitt Romney, like Giuliani strays away from the republican base to much. America has only elected 1 Christian President, every other one has fit the mold we are not about to break the mold, this applies to Mormons, women, and African Americans.


Huh?

1. Can you support John McCain for President, or do some of his apparent negatives (flip-flops on social and religious issues, hostility to some of Bush's people, support for campaign finance reform) pose too high a barrier for you?

I do not even know where he stands now on gay marriage, his position seems to change quite often. I dislike his views on immigration and campaign finance reform. Given these however, I think he would probably be the Republicans' best chance at winning.

2. Would you consider that Giuliani's apparently socially liberal positions on issues like gay rights and abortion, or the likelihood that the people close to him share those views, disqualify him from your support or the support of the Republican base?

Yes, a candidate's stance on abortion is the first and foremost litmus test I use on a candidate, and Giuliani does not pass muster.

3. Given the conservative Christian base of the Republican Party, will Mitt Romney's religion and recent liberal social positions be a barrier to his choice in the primaries?

Not for me, Mitt Romney's views on the issues are closest to my own, and I think he has done as good as job as could have been done in my state considering the rampant opposition of our legislature. I only care about what a candidate will do, not what particular religion he proscribes to. I have worked with his state administration and met him in person- he is a good, charismatic and personable guy. As of now, I support Romney.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

R_Ingber said:


> America has only elected 1 Christian President, every other one has fit the mold we are not about to break the moldQUOTE]
> 
> I really didn't set this thread up to argue with people, but this seems like a very bizarre statement, and one that would probably be surprising to most people. Could you explain the definition of Christianity that you are using that disqualifies 42 of the Presidents of the United States, and tell us who the one is who meets your definition?


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> R_Ingber said:
> 
> 
> > America has only elected 1 Christian President, every other one has fit the mold we are not about to break the moldQUOTE]
> ...


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

That could very well be. I've heard of people claiming that Catholics are not Christians, though, so I thought it was worth asking.

Thanks.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

I certainly hope that our party is smart enough to nominate Rudy...it would really be the best possible thing that could happen to America if he were elected president...I dunno...the way I see it...a good chunk of your middle class and up liberals are actually republicans...they dont like being robbed blind to feed the lazy and inept, but they just dont like to admit it, so they hide behind this veil of social compassion...the right to choose is a pretty big part of it...what if we had a fiscally conservative candidate running who finally let go of the antiquated GOP pro-life stance, and maybe let the gays get married so they could be just as frusterated as all the other married couples out there...but at the same time doesnt pander to the left in supporting every off the wall social program and policy to help foreign countrys who have no use for us besides money...I think a guy like Rudy would appeal to alot of sensible liberals...I just hope that the Republican party has enough faith in his ability to give him the nomination...he's really the only sensible choice out of all the candidates on both sides...


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

I have the problems you mention (except the part about the Bush people) with McCain. Especially the campaign reform bit. (I do think he's a pretty mean fellow, though that, alone, would not prevent me for voting for him).

I like Rudi, but he has far to many liberal policies for me to vote for him.

At this point, I'd have to say that I support Romney, though, I want to learn more about him. His multiple flip-flops on abortion are troublesome.

If Newt was a candidate, I'd probably support him.


----------



## Droog (Aug 29, 2006)

1. McCain's role in the Gang of 14 is an industrial strength, almost unforgiveable negative.

2. I think he is a real leader, but I have to know more about how/if his liberal social values would be translated into concrete policy. We don't need a donkey in elephant clothing.

3. Don't think Romney's religion should be an overriding issue as the family values associatd with Mormonism are aligned with the Christian right.

4. Newt.

However, I would vote for any of the above in the general election over anyone the Dems are likely to put up.


----------



## PennGlock (Mar 14, 2006)

McCain's part in the "Gang of 14" was the last straw for me. The man has a history of picking the absolute strangest issues to compromise on. Who exactly was McCain trying to win over with that stunt? The appointment of solid, conservative judges is an issue that is supported by basically anyone who has ever voted republican. I believe in the case of the Gang of 14, and in several other instances, McCain let his ego make the decision. He wanted to be the toast of the town, to have the words 'great uniter' printed under his picture in the newspapers.

The social positions of Giuliani and Romney rule them right out- they dont stand a chance in hell, and they're both fully aware of it. They're playing for VP, cabinet positions, or something. McCain can pull of the nomination provided he starts singing a conservative tune for the next year. He's seriously going to have to work on his conservative image, though, or he'll lose the nomination.

I would hate to see any of those 3 win. They're all too wishy-washy about the issues I care about, chief among them taxes. All I want is a guy who will be able to stand up to the Dem congress and veto tax increases. I can just see McCain working with congress to craft some asinine compromise that results in higher taxes and virtually nothing gained for our side. Why can't a candidate come forward with the message "I will cut taxes _every single chance_ I get?" Doesn't anyone vote their paycheck anymore?

Who is my favored candidate? I have no clue at this point. My top 3 issues are tax cuts, making Social Security/Medicare solvent, and willingness to veto any new gun control legislation. If anyone in this thread knows of a candidate for me, please let me know.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

Although not part of the Christian Right, I would have a problem with Romney's Mormonism. I realize that most mainstream LDS adherents are admirable people--frugal, industrious, family-oriented, clean-living, etc. Still, I would have a problem electing as President a man who presumably wears magic underwear! At least to me, there is a degree of intrinsic credulity in adherence to Mormonism that I would find troubling in a chief executive although I would have comparatively few problems voting for a Mormon for lesser offices.


----------



## AMVanquish (May 24, 2005)

Right now, there are some disturbing polls for the GOP. Hillary's ahead of everyone but Rudy. Although it's early, it seems like Rudy's the best shot at the moment(having no ties to the currently unpopular President or the even more unpopular GOP-led Congress.)

Still, you saw what a disaster John Kerry was for the Democrats, when they decided not to vote with their hearts and choose "whoever had the best chance of beating Bush." I'm sure the GOP would like to avoid that mistake.

But Rudy's a great candidate, so maybe I shouldn't lump him in with Kerry.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

This a fascinating conversation. Thanks for letting the rest of us listen in. Please continue while I check property listings for the Amalfi coast.


----------



## Badrabbit (Nov 18, 2004)

Rudy being pro gun-control makes him worthless as a candidate in my book.


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

For the first time in my short voting life, I'm considering voting Democrat or simply not voting. The Republicans have no viable candidates.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

What? Jeb Bush isn't going to run?


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

Jack,

Thank you for asking.

1. Yes, I can easily support John McCain.

2. My positions on social issues are pretty much in line with Rudy's.

3. Mitt Romney's positions may be a barrier to his choice in the primaries, but so are McCain's and Guiliani's. If conservatives can put up a better candidate, fine. If not, they should support the Republican choice and not throw any temper tantrums.

4. Any one of these three are fine with me but I would prefer a McCain-Guiliani or Romney-Guiliani ticket.


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> If not one of the above three, who is your favored candidate?
> 
> Thanks, gents.


Condoleeza Rice.


----------



## patbrady2005 (Oct 4, 2005)

JLibourel said:


> Although not part of the Christian Right, I would have a problem with Romney's Mormonism. I realize that most mainstream LDS adherents are admirable people--frugal, industrious, family-oriented, clean-living, etc. Still, I would have a problem electing as President a man who presumably wears magic underwear! At least to me, there is a degree of intrinsic credulity in adherence to Mormonism that I would find troubling in a chief executive although I would have comparatively few problems voting for a Mormon for lesser offices.


All religions have certain beliefs/traditions that when viewed from outside seem silly.

I could just as easily say that I would have trouble voting for someone who actually believed that the Son of God walked the earth, healed the sick and was crucified and resurrected.

In addition, every Sunday people eat wine and wafers that they believe actually turn into his flesh and blood.

Magic underwear sounds tame compared to that!

By the way, I'm not slamming these beliefs, I'm just saying that to an outsider they all probably seem just as "magical".


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

patbrady2005 said:


> All religions have certain beliefs/traditions that when viewed from outside seem silly.
> 
> I could just as easily say that I would have trouble voting for someone who actually believed that the Son of God walked the earth, healed the sick and was crucified and resurrected.
> 
> ...


At the very least, the question of the divinity of Jesus Christ and the reliability of the apostolic witnesses is shrouded by the passage of 20 centuries since the date of the Incarnation. Judaism antedates that by a couple of millenia (by their reckoning at least), and Islam has been around for almost 14 centuries.

I might add that while I most certainly no foe to religious belief, I despise excessive credulity and superstition. I must say that I am rendered very uncomfortable with a president who would ignore the wisdom and experience of his father to seek direct inspiration from his "Heavenly Father" to pursue policies that at least to this longtime Republican appeared to be obvious folly from the get-go.

In the case of Mormonism, we are expected to believe that a young man of previously questionable character was told to dig up a quantity of golden plates by an angel. The angel provided him with some magic eyeglasses to translate the plates. The translation includes phrases from Shakespeare and the King James Version, which postdate the supposed 4th century A.D. date of the plates by over a milennium. The translation completed, the angel removed the plates and magic eyeglasses presumably heavenward. All this is not some remote legend on the order of Noah's Ark, it is supposed to have occurred in New York State in the 1820s. Moreover, the Book of Mormon supposedly chronicles the existence of mighty Jewish civilizations in the New World, not a scintilla of archaelogical evidence for which has ever been found! At least in the case of Bible, there is an immense amount of archaelogical and historical corrorobative evidence, for the book of Mormon, none.

I could go on at great length about other aspects of Mormonism--that it is, in fact, a polytheistic system and is regarded as non-Christian by all major Xian bodies that I am aware, its longtime practice of polygamy (still widely practiced in Utah by heterdox Mormons, often with the acquiesence of the mainstream LDS), the fact that it was institutionally racist until less than 30 years ago, but I don't want to spend too much time belaboring the issue.

I wil fully concede that many bright, highly successful individuals are Mormons. They are more often than not very upstanding citizens. Nonetheless, the entire religion seems so fantastic, so implausible, so utterly without historical foundation, that I simply cannot entirely trust the critical faculties and intellectual abilities of someone who espouses it. For this reason, I will not vote for Romney, no matter whom the Democrats might run against him.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

I tend to share Dr. Lib's views Re: a Mormon president...but I must say that I'd vote for a member of the church of LDS any day before I voted for a closet muslim...I know that apparently that isnt the case...but how many Catholics named hussein obama do you know really???


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

The Gabba Goul said:


> I tend to share Dr. Lib's views Re: a Mormon president...but I must say that I'd vote for a member of the church of LDS any day before I voted for a closet muslim...I know that apparently that isnt the case...but how many Catholics named hussein obama do you know really???


One raised by them from childhood.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

Obama was named after his father, who was a Muslim turned militant atheist. Obama's father left his white, nominally Xian mother when little Barack was only two years old and had little influence on him as he grew up. Obama joined the United Church of Christ as an adult. He is not and never has been a Catholic, nor for that matter a Muslim.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

still dont trust him...but that's neither here nor there...I'd actually like to see another Catholic in the white house...that's another reason why I'm pulling for Rudy...


----------



## AOI Photo (Dec 19, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> 1. Can you support John McCain for President, or do some of his apparent negatives (flip-flops on social and religious issues, hostility to some of Bush's people, support for campaign finance reform) pose too high a barrier for you?


Well his hostility to Bush's people is aa strength for this particularl Republican voter. Excluding the war for a moment to focus on less discussed things... Bush has brought a republicanism that believes in more spending, and more government control from the federal level: No Child Left Behind, The end of basic individual rights, in favor of increased government power,etc. Basically the opposite of classic American (ie Goldwater) conservative thought.

I do worry about McCain getting close to the religious right, but that is part of the game, you have to appear socially conservative to win the primary, and then moderate to win the general election.



jackmccullough said:


> 2. Would you consider that Giuliani's apparently socially liberal positions on issues like gay rights and abortion, or the likelihood that the people close to him share those views, disqualify him from your support or the support of the Republican base?


No his basic belief that the role of government should be bigger disqualifies him, not his social beliefs, that and the baggage he carries



jackmccullough said:


> 3. Given the conservative Christian base of the Republican Party, will Mitt Romney's religion and recent liberal social positions be a barrier to his choice in the primaries?


Depends who the final slate of reasonable candidates includes.



jackmccullough said:


> 4. If not one of the above three, who is your favored candidate?


Too early to decide. I liked McCain but worry about his move to the social right. Still right now he seems the best of a bad to so so bunch.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

The Gabba Goul said:


> still dont trust him...but that's neither here nor there...I'd actually like to see another Catholic in the white house...that's another reason why I'm pulling for Rudy...


Catholic is as Catholic does. Rudy Giuliani is *not* Catholic. ( although he'll claim to be if it's politically expedient)


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

I am most concerned about national security so I would vote today for Giuliani. He did a terrific job fixing NYC. I was unfortunately there during the Dinkins years so I know what a big job he had to.

I don't honestly believe McCain is a conservative on any measure. He has knifed the Bush administration in the back and has a poor record on controlling spending and lowering taxes.

I believe McCain is unelectable and a victim of spending too much time in the Beltway.


----------



## CCabot (Oct 4, 2006)

Artisan Fan said:


> I am most concerned about national security so I would vote today for Giuliani.


I am confused by this statement. What has Giuliani done or said that makes him more attractive from a national security point of view?


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

JLibourel said:


> At the very least, the question of the divinity of Jesus Christ and the reliability of the apostolic witnesses is shrouded by the passage of 20 centuries since the date of the Incarnation. Judaism antedates that by a couple of millenia (by their reckoning at least), and Islam has been around for almost 14 centuries.
> 
> I might add that while I most certainly no foe to religious belief, I despise excessive credulity and superstition. I must say that I am rendered very uncomfortable with a president who would ignore the wisdom and experience of his father to seek direct inspiration from his "Heavenly Father" to pursue policies that at least to this longtime Republican appeared to be obvious folly from the get-go.
> 
> ...


Jan, I agree with you on this. I think Mormonism is very similar to Scientology in this respect. If you're willing to believe the obvious con story from Joseph Smith, or if you're willing to believe that humans are reincarnated space aliens, or some humans are reincarnated space aliens, which is pretty close to what Scientologists believe, that suggests to me that you'll believe just about anything. I was just talking about this with a friend of mine today and I asked her to ask her Mormon sister if she literally believes the golden plates story as a matter of actual fact, in the same way that we believe that we had Wheat Chex for breakfast this morning.

Of course, given that lots of people in the country believe that balls of gas billions of miles away influence their personality and fate, it may not be disqualifying for a lot of voters.


----------



## NoVaguy (Oct 15, 2004)

CCabot said:


> I am confused by this statement. What has Giuliani done or said that makes him more attractive from a national security point of view?


Honestly, nothing. His career was basically over until 9/11, and he gone from the mayor's office shortly afterwards. in essence, his national security credentials involve giving a few ground zero speeches and recommending the mobbed up and corrupt bernard kerik for a federal office.

Ever since then, he's been wrapping himself up in 9/11 and the flag. Brings to mind the old quote about the last refuge of scoundrel.


----------



## NoVaguy (Oct 15, 2004)

Artisan Fan said:


> I am most concerned about national security so I would vote today for Giuliani. He did a terrific job fixing NYC. I was unfortunately there during the Dinkins years so I know what a big job he had to.
> 
> I don't honestly believe McCain is a conservative on any measure. He has knifed the Bush administration in the back and has a poor record on controlling spending and lowering taxes.


Crime was on its way down before guiliani showed up. I would say most of the credit for the crime drop goes to the economic boom in the 90's, which has the obvious effect of reducing the number of unemployed individuals who can be tempted into crime.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

JLibourel said:


> At the very least, the question of the divinity of Jesus Christ and the reliability of the apostolic witnesses is shrouded by the passage of 20 centuries since the date of the Incarnation. Judaism antedates that by a couple of millenia (by their reckoning at least), and Islam has been around for almost 14 centuries.
> 
> I might add that while I most certainly no foe to religious belief, I despise excessive credulity and superstition. I must say that I am rendered very uncomfortable with a president who would ignore the wisdom and experience of his father to seek direct inspiration from his "Heavenly Father" to pursue policies that at least to this longtime Republican appeared to be obvious folly from the get-go.
> 
> ...


This is exactly my feeling as well. I have known and know many fine people who are Mormon - they tend to be VERY, very good/nice people. I lived next door to a Mormon family as a kid growing up in California and went to school with many - exceptionally nice people. I've known some who are ER and surgeon MDs and are very bright; I was in law school with, at least one that I knew of, and he, too, was very intelligent- and I certainly don't think Mitt is any dummy. I just can't get my mind around how these very smart people can buy into this complete fable which has NO historical evidence (or genetic evidence for that matter - i.e., American Indians comprising the lost tribe of Israel). As you point out, a person can certainly dismiss the divinity of Christ, miracles, etc., but, at least the New Testament is rooted in history with corroborating archaeological and historical evidence which confirms ancillary references and details in the books, i.e., temple practices, governors, rulers, priests, the location of buildings, baths, cities, etc. Voting for a Mormon would make me nervous - though he may be perfectly fine and outstanding in many other respects - this complete suspension of rationality on this issue is problematic.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Not to thread jack, but if Mormonism had been created 30 centuries ago, we would not be having this conversation. From this heathen's viewpoint, the story of Mormon is just as feasible as an illiterate goat herder being devinely possessed and writing the Koran (hint: I think Mo wrote it). The only difference is that Joe made up his stuff less than two centuries ago and we have good records of his antecedents.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

A good article on Rudy's accomplishments in NYC.

https://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDZjNDVlOTIxNzI1MjdlZTg3OWRhOTljYmU5NmZjMzY=


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> Not to thread jack, but if Mormonism had been created 30 centuries ago, we would not be having this conversation. From this heathen's viewpoint, the story of Mormon is just as feasible as an illiterate goat herder being devinely possessed and writing the Koran (hint: I think Mo wrote it). The only difference is that Joe made up his stuff less than two centuries ago and we have good records of his antecedents.


Theyare very similar in that regard - both are based on pre-existing religions and both incorporate gnostic ideas/views of Christianity.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

CCabot said:


> I am confused by this statement. What has Giuliani done or said that makes him more attractive from a national security point of view?


Well, truthfully all he did was show the common sense to get out of that one building before it collapsed. While he takes some teasing for it, that's actually pretty good in my opinion.

I think another thing is that he met with and went to so many services for victims of 9/11 and also for soldiers killed in the WOT.

Give me someone with leadership experience, common sense, and good survival skills that really cares about Americans and I'm generally happy to have him guarding the moat.

You don't see that in Hillary, for example by reports she hasn't gone to a single service (or very very few) and she's the Senator from NY. She makes stupid political decisions like the two pots she is in now with the War vote and this Obama/Geffen thing. Frankly, I can't think of any situation where I would be in a group and I would pick Hillary over myself to be a leader. I can with Rudy. I have heard him speak twice he's very impressive and has a broad application of knowledge and experience behind me.

I never understood the Hillary is smarter than Bill B.S. either. I find Bill to be one of the more competent people on the planet and I find her to be a total waste of time. Her voice is irritating, but what she says is much more irritating. Just shut her up, please!

McCain is like Kerry IMHO. Neither one ever really done anything after they left the military. I don't find that impressive at all. I like my credentials better than either one of theirs too. So, why would I vote for them? I don't feel I am qualified to be president, but I'm a much better and experienced leader, manager, problem solver, and decision maker than either one of those dopes. McCain's only claim to fame lately is he was trumpeting the old military theory of more boots on the ground earlier. I think this is a false positive. While Iraq has not gone well, I actually think overall Rumsfeld did a necessary thing transforming the military in a lot of ways. McCain is part of the old guard IMHO and even a broken clock is right twice a day. A lot of the stuff in Iraq with troops was caused by the failed diplomacy with Turkey which was Powell's fault not Rumsfeld's. We are still paying for not securing the border with Syria in so many ways from WMD, to foreign fighters, to IEDs and other weapons.

Romney is very impressive if you can look past the Mormon thing at his resume. I'd like to hear a negative about Romney not based on mormonism.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Not to thread jack, but if Mormonism had been created 30 centuries ago, we would not be having this conversation. From this heathen's viewpoint, the story of Mormon is just as feasible as an illiterate goat herder being devinely possessed and writing the Koran (hint: I think Mo wrote it). The only difference is that Joe made up his stuff less than two centuries ago and we have good records of his antecedents.


I don't know anything about this Joseph dude and Mormonism, but I do know that Mohammed was a murderer and a pedophile. I find that makes it much harder to believe he was "devinely possessed". If you read the Koran there is a totally different tone than say the Bible. It's pretty obvious there are significant differences in the inspiration - "demonically possessed" perhaps?

The LDS I know do seem to possess a loving spirit and a kind nature more in line with christian values, but that's all I know. And hey, Steve Young was a great quarterback, so it can't all be bad


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

NoVaguy said:


> Crime was on its way down before guiliani showed up. I would say most of the credit for the crime drop goes to the economic boom in the 90's, which has the obvious effect of reducing the number of unemployed individuals who can be tempted into crime.


Why weren't cities like New Orleans and Detroit able to take advantage of the economic boom of the 90's like NYC? Its easy to dismiss the role of a strong leader and say that those changes would have occured anyway but lets at least admit that leadership has alot to do with a city taking advantage of those changes for the good of the city.


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

Lushington said:


> Please continue while I check property listings for the Amalfi coast.


 You too?

As a former Republican turned Democrat, I could support Giuliani ... but not McCain. Were the party as a whole more like Giuliani, I would seriously consider returning.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

RSS said:


> You too?


Hell yes. Two, three years tops: I'm outta here.


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

Lushington said:


> Hell yes. Two, three years tops: I'm outta here.


I wonder if Vidal's place in Ravello is on the market -- it appears he's back in the U.S near full time -- but he used to spend a fair amount of time there. I recall noticing him in a nearby cafe ... and using _"Encore de Dr. Pepper, Clive"_ (a line from *Duluth*, one of his "Chinese boxes")as the waiter approached my table. I thought that might be obscure enough to raise an eyebrow ... but he didn't respond ... or didn't hear.

I'm outta here ... but only for half the year. Sadly, I'm still in touch via the Internet ... while I'm "away." It was so much more enjoyable when I got information the slow way ... via newspapers.

Now all this talk about the conservative Christian right has got me thinking about a Molly Ivins quote:

_*Everyone knows God is nonpartisan, but I swear Jesus was a liberal -- the best, the biggest, the original bleeding heart -- the one who embraced the outcasts, the model for us all. Just read the stuff in the New Testament written in red. Don't ever try to convince me that Christianity is right-wing.*_ *Molly Ivins*


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

RSS said:


> I wonder if Vidal's place in Ravello is on the market ... as it appears he's back here full time.


He sold _La Rondinaia _about a year ago.


----------



## AOI Photo (Dec 19, 2006)

You Know, a large part of the problem is that Republicans are now where people used to joke about the democrats being. 

When The Democratic party held people ranging from the views of a Lloyd Bentsen to a Jesse Jackson you couldn't really even define a democrat. There was no single issue you could find broad consensus on.

Now the GOP is that way.

Let us take the leader of the party. G. W. Bush

Views on Abortion: Pro Life
Views on Government size: Favours larger government
Views on States rights; Favours increased federal contrl and federal standards
Views on foreign policy: Interventionist
Views on powers of the presidency: Virtually unlimited

You can find a prominant Republican who takes the opposite view on an7y of these. I don't mean this post as praise or criticism for the president, just using him as an example to show the strange schizophrenia of the GOP right now.


----------



## rkipperman (Mar 19, 2006)

Artisan Fan said:


> I am most concerned about national security so I would vote today for Giuliani. He did a terrific job fixing NYC. I was unfortunately there during the Dinkins years so I know what a big job he had to.


I was trying to forget about Dinkins! Ugh!! You just set me back a few years.


----------



## Blackadder (Apr 3, 2004)

NoVaguy said:


> Crime was on its way down before guiliani showed up. I would say most of the credit for the crime drop goes to the economic boom in the 90's, which has the obvious effect of reducing the number of unemployed individuals who can be tempted into crime.


I lived in NYC during the late Dinkins and Giuliani years, and I must completely disagree with this statement. The demographic trends may have been pointing to lower crime rates, but that simply cannot explain an eventual crime rate below the 1950s. In the Dinkins years, there were huge no-go areas of the city (areas that outnumbered normal neighbourhoods), and City Hall had seemingly accepted that. Rudy insisted that there should be no part of the city where the authority of government could be ignored. That's the first step in attacking crime, or at least giving city dwellers the hope that they can live without fear.


----------



## RJman (Nov 11, 2003)

AOI Photo said:


> You Know, a large part of the problem is that Republicans are now where people used to joke about the democrats being.
> 
> When The Democratic party held people ranging from the views of a Lloyd Bentsen to a Jesse Jackson you couldn't really even define a democrat. There was no single issue you could find broad consensus on.
> 
> ...


It's an interesting observation. I was reminded earlier this week that during the 1996 elections, some observers commented that the GOP was in a sort of fragmentation while the Democrats (with whom I don't, for the record, identify) were ideologically unified. Certainly there has been a perception since then that the Republicans have presented a united front while the Democrats squabbled. Perhaps in this moment we are faced with both parties in a sort of fragmentation. If only either of them actually stood for their convictions...


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

RJman said:


> If only either of them actually stood for their convictions...


First they would need convictions for which to stand.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

An interesting breakdown on Rudy and Social Issues:

https://race42008.com/2007/02/23/rudy-electoral-math/


----------



## CCabot (Oct 4, 2006)

AOI Photo said:


> You Know, a large part of the problem is that Republicans are now where people used to joke about the democrats being.
> 
> When The Democratic party held people ranging from the views of a Lloyd Bentsen to a Jesse Jackson you couldn't really even define a democrat. There was no single issue you could find broad consensus on.
> 
> ...


 I think this is largely true of either party because of the nature of the two-party system. Inevitably, one will align with one party or another despite not agreeing with the party platform on all counts. Zell Miller or (formerly) Joe Lieberman would be examples for the Democrats.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

AOI Photo said:


> You Know, a large part of the problem is that Republicans are now where people used to joke about the democrats being.
> 
> When The Democratic party held people ranging from the views of a Lloyd Bentsen to a Jesse Jackson you couldn't really even define a democrat. There was no single issue you could find broad consensus on.
> 
> ...


I feel the same way about McCain as I do W - both are republicans neither are conservatives. I think that's how we get to the condition you aptly describe.


----------



## JohnMS (Feb 18, 2004)

*Mitt Romney*

POST DELETED


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

Post deleted. It was a response to JohnMS's post. Since he deleted his, my reply would make little sense.


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

Blackadder said:


> I lived in NYC during the late Dinkins and Giuliani years, and I must completely disagree with this statement. The demographic trends may have been pointing to lower crime rates, but that simply cannot explain an eventual crime rate below the 1950s. In the Dinkins years, there were huge no-go areas of the city (areas that outnumbered normal neighbourhoods), and City Hall had seemingly accepted that. Rudy insisted that there should be no part of the city where the authority of government could be ignored. That's the first step in attacking crime, or at least giving city dwellers the hope that they can live without fear.


I've read arguments that it was in fact Giuliani's police chief that did the heavy lifting in his effort-- and got canned when the mayor got envious of his press coverage.

I was never that close to the situation even as outsiders go, so I can't comment. But Giuliani has a lot of enemies who would be delighted to see him flame out under the campaign spotlight. This having everything to do with his personality and nothing to do with his political or social outlook.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Concordia said:


> I've read arguments that it was in fact Giuliani's police chief that did the heavy lifting in his effort-- and got canned when the mayor got envious of his press coverage.
> 
> I was never that close to the situation even as outsiders go, so I can't comment. But Giuliani has a lot of enemies who would be delighted to see him flame out under the campaign spotlight. This having everything to do with his personality and nothing to do with his political or social outlook.


I'm sure if those things are true we will be treated to it all in living color fairly quickly. I actually hope all the weak candidates are exposed and disposed of quickly. I'd like to see several others that might be thinking it's a waste of time to run step into the race and feel it's an open race.


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

It's starting already:

https://www.slate.com/id/2160285/


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

Concordia, interesting article and insights about Giuliani ... and the last few paragraphs about Bloomberg.

Tonight I received a survey call. While a certain amount of the 20 minutes of questioning was added to disguise the intent, it seemed obvious that the purpose is an effort to discern how a third party candidacy -- particularly one headed by a business leader with experience in civic affairs and/or government -- might be be received.

Donald Trump was mentioned ... once. I laughed, literally. Warren Buffett's name popped up -- that certainly got my attention. But Michael Bloomberg's name was referenced multiple times.


----------



## arturostevens (Feb 6, 2007)

The problem with Romney's Mormonism is that the religious right leaders will be loathe to get on board. Although the religios right and Mormons do share the family values thing, the religious right thinks that Mormonsim is a cult and not even a true Christian religion. The leaders in the religious right will not get on board with Romney when it is all said and done. I don't think family values will be enough to create a bond here. 

Plus much of America is ignorant and will associate Mormonism with its historical roots of polygamy which has been rejected by that church a long time ago.

I think that Rudy has a pretty good chance of getting the ticket, but his 3 marriages will bother the religious right as well which will be more black and white on platform issues, and will be bothered by his stance on gays and abortion. They will consider him intrinsically to left for their comfort zone, and if nominated, despite his heroism with NYC. Large blocks of people will either plug neir noses and vote or not show up for him.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

*Romney-Bush?*

https://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17299697/site/newsweek/

Interesting thought re Jeb..


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

Concordia said:


> It's starting already:
> 
> https://www.slate.com/id/2160285/


God forbid that we would need a leader...


----------



## CCabot (Oct 4, 2006)

Concordia said:


> It's starting already:
> 
> https://www.slate.com/id/2160285/


 What I find really interesting about that article is how Rudy Giuliani has been described as a fiscally conservative "Rockefeller Republican" by many, yet the article mentions that "Giuliani, who lost interest in curtailing the growth of city government in his latter years, left behind a fiscal catastrophe-a $6.4 billion deficit proportionately bigger than the hole that caused the 1975 fiscal shortfall."


----------



## maxnharry (Dec 3, 2004)

ksinc said:


> I feel the same way about McCain as I do W - both are republicans neither are conservatives. I think that's how we get to the condition you aptly describe.


I agree with this sentiment. McCain was interesting last time around, but seems to have aligned himself too closely with the religious right.

Coming from the libertarian camp of the Republican party, I hope we return to our conservative roots.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

maxnharry said:


> I agree with this sentiment. McCain was interesting last time around, but seems to have aligned himself too closely with the religious right.
> 
> Coming from the libertarian camp of the Republican party, I hope we return to our conservative roots.


I don't know a single person that is "religious right" that even likes McCain much less feels aligned with him or him with them.

The conservative roots are the religious conservatives and most are the libertarian like myself. So, I disagree if you are saying these are separate groups.

W is neither religious right, conservative, or libertarian. That's why he has to "court the base" so heavily.

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/25/...&ex=1172984400&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print


----------



## meister (Oct 29, 2005)

*Cross Benches*

I am not an American but an avid follower of US politics.

Heres's my 2 centavos worth.

Whoever the GOP pick as their candidate will win.

The USA is not ready for another Clinton and Barack is too left for the mainstream. The rest are losers.

The GOP will have difficulty only if they fail to get their people "off the couch".

However, that will not be a problem as the proposed Democrat candidates are sooo badd that the GOP supporters will back any official candidate and that person will win.

Any votes lost for the Christian Right will be regathered from the centre. Dems are unelectable. Doesn't matter if its FLA or OH - it will be some other state where they will fall short - even with their machines in the cities working overtime.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Here's the latest poll from Quinnipiac. It shows Giuliani way on top.

https://www.pollingreport.com/wh08rep.htm


----------



## AMVanquish (May 24, 2005)

meister said:


> I am not an American but an avid follower of US politics.
> 
> Heres's my 2 centavos worth.
> 
> ...


When the electoral map in 2004 almost mirrored that of 2000, I thought the GOP was going to have a lock for a while. But last year's midterms put that into doubt. Democrats won statewide races in Montana, Missouri, Colorado, Iowa, Ohio and Virginia(all Bush states in 2004.) That, and I think Louisiana may still be directing most of its anger to Bush for the Katrina response. So all these states seem to be in play.

Of course, I know that there's a world of difference for a conservative state between electing one of its own Democrats for the Senate and electing a Democrat from another state for President.

Still, it's no easy call.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> Here's the latest poll from Quinnipiac. It shows Giuliani way on top.
> 
> https://www.pollingreport.com/wh08rep.htm


I wonder how much effect the story Concordia posted will have in the coming weeks?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

AMVanquish said:


> When the electoral map in 2004 almost mirrored that of 2000, I thought the GOP was going to have a lock for a while. But last year's midterms put that into doubt. Democrats won statewide races in Montana, Missouri, Colorado, Iowa, Ohio and Virginia(all Bush states in 2004.) That, and I think Louisiana may still be directing most of its anger to Bush for the Katrina response. So all these states seem to be in play.
> 
> Of course, I know that there's a world of difference for a conservative state between electing one of its own Democrats for the Senate and electing a Democrat from another state for President.
> 
> Still, it's no easy call.


I thought that too, but then there's 1,001 ways to screw up a good thing.

This our Congressman who ran as a Conservative Republican supporting W (I came within a gnat's whisker of voting for the Dem because of local issues, but decided W and the WOT was more important - now he's bolted and he's going to run again violating his own term limit pledge):

Reaction from our local talk show:
https://www.540wfla.com/pages/keller_email.html


----------



## CCabot (Oct 4, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> Here's the latest poll from Quinnipiac. It shows Giuliani way on top.
> 
> https://www.pollingreport.com/wh08rep.htm


 I am not sure I put much stock in that poll. For one thing, the sample size is quite small. For another, Quinnipiac is a small regional New York college, a demographic where Giuliani probably has a lot more clout than elsewhere.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

You may be confusing Quinnipiac with Marist (or, as my brother who went there and worked on their first poll called it, Roger Maris College). Still, you're right that most of these polls have small sample sizes.


----------



## CCabot (Oct 4, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> You may be confusing Quinnipiac with Marist (or, as my brother who went there and worked on their first poll called it, Roger Maris College). Still, you're right that most of these polls have small sample sizes.


Nah, I was basing my characterization of Quinnipiac from what I got off their website - 70% of their students come from the Tri-State area, with another 21% from Massachusetts. The student population from the rest of the country is overshadowed to say the least.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Yes, Quinnipiac is in Connecticut, but I think their surveys are national. I haven't read their methodology, though.


----------



## 16128 (Feb 8, 2005)

The Gabba Goul said:


> I think a guy like Rudy would appeal to alot of sensible liberals...I just hope that the Republican party has enough faith in his ability to give him the nomination...he's really the only sensible choice out of all the candidates on both sides...


And that's why he's going to get the nomination.

Rudy's a fiscal conservative and a national security guy.

Real Republicans know that abortion is a state issue, not a federal one. So why would his previous pro-choice stance cost Giuliani the election?

Almost everybody I know and work with is a fiscal conservative who doesn't care if gay people want to get married. Why are the two political choices lately always between a Christian conservative and a fiscal liberal? I am a long-term fiscal conservative Republican and the party has been hijacked by these lame, intrusive social issues.

FFS! Give me somebody I can support for once!


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

VS said:


> And that's why he's going to get the nomination.
> 
> Rudy's a fiscal conservative and a national security guy.
> 
> ...


Word...isnt it about time that us moderates got a shot at running things???


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

The Gabba Goul said:


> Word...isnt it about time that us moderates got a shot at running things???


Both parties are asking the same question. But Giuliani has two major problems which will be his downfall in a general election: a lot of moral/sexual skeletons in his closet, and much worse, being far too aligned with Bush's disastrous security and foreign policies. Not that Giuliani and other Bush Republicans care, they seem to be enjoying the delusion that they're global dictators, and their relentless terror and fear mongering over a handful of boogeymen Islamic terrorists. But if anything was clear from the last election, independents (you know, those who've been deciding elections for the last 20 years) have finally had enough of having their mail opened, their phone conversations monitored, their bank records monitored, their frickin' shaving cream confiscated by TSA teetsuckers, and on and on and on. Independents will be the ones who finally put the War on a Human Emotion out of its misery, and stop the Republican totalitarian snowball from continuing its plunge down Hysteria Hill.


----------



## AMVanquish (May 24, 2005)

Do you realize that it would only take the election of 15-20 independent or third party representatives to swing the agenda of the House?

They could join the GOP in keeping taxes and programs down, and join the Democrats in keeping the government out of social issues. They pretty much hold the deciding vote on all bills.

Maybe that's how the moderates should start thinking.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

VS said:


> And that's why he's going to get the nomination.
> 
> Rudy's a fiscal conservative and a national security guy.
> 
> ...


While I am a libertarian and have no issues with gay people, I do care if marriage is "hijacked" to include gay marriage. I also do not like polygamy or other alternative views of marriage. While I agree some people are intrusive social lamers, gay marriage is not an issue that defines that group. As a libertarian there is no way for me to avoid or step around the State issue of gay marriage issue as there is with people's personal private behavior.

I'm socially extremely conservative in my personal choices, but I also don't care about issues like leglized gambling, prostitution, or drugs. I do care about gay marriage. I think civil unions are the answer then put the issue to rest. It's a loser politically and while you are right that the majority don't care or aren't militant about gays, the majority of people are against it when "forced" to deal with it.

My personal feeling is, it's a bit of an "in your face" to traditional values / prudes that serves no purpose. Just let it go. I realize many people are passionate about the issue in support of gay marriage. No disrespect to them, but I just have no support for the right to gay marriage. I just don't see a lack of gay marriage as a "problem".

On abortion, I view it as a moral issue. I am extremely pro-life, but also pro-choice as a State view. My personal view is such (and I have stated before) that I agree with a person who I heard say about being pro-abortion, "a person has the right to go to hell if they want to." I'm not saying they will or won't, I'm just saying that I agree with the sentiment of moral/religious issues and free will not being State issues.


----------



## AOI Photo (Dec 19, 2006)

ksinc said:


> While I am a libertarian and have no issues with gay people, I do care if marriage is "hijacked" to include gay marriage. I also do not like polygamy or another alternative views of marriage. While I agree some people are intrusive social lamers, gay marriage is not an issue that defines that group. As a libertarian there is no way for me to avoid or step around the State issue of gay marriage issue as there is with people's personal private behavior.
> 
> I'm socially extremely conservative in my personal choices, but I also don't care about issues like leglized gambling, prostitution, or drugs. I do care about gay marriage. I think civil unions are the answer then put the issue to rest. It's a loser politically and while you are right, the majority don't care or aren't militant about gays the majority of people are against it when "forced" to deal with it.


See as a fellow (small l) libertarian I feel just the opposite. The state should take no note of marriages or civil unions at all. Noe benefits, no penalties. An individual is an individual and no joining of any group including a marriage can create new rights. Traditionally libertarians don't see marriage as a state issue. It is either:
1. A private contract between consenting adults in which case the state should leave it alone

or

2. A religious institution to be defined by each faith.. in which case the state should leave it alone.

No elected official should ever need to know if someone is married or not in the first place.
I personally have no problems legally or morally with gay people. I have moral objections to people joining group marriages... but I have moral problems with people dressing disrespectfully for funerals too, and I don't get to legislate about it.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

AMVanquish said:


> Do you realize that it would only take the election of 15-20 independent or third party representatives to swing the agenda of the House?
> 
> They could join the GOP in keeping taxes and programs down, and join the Democrats in keeping the government out of social issues. They pretty much hold the deciding vote on all bills.
> 
> Maybe that's how the moderates should start thinking.


I'd love to see Lieberman run as an Indy for President in 2008. He'd get my vote.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

AOI Photo said:


> See as a fellow (small l) libertarian I feel just the opposite. The state should take no note of marriages or civil unions at all. Noe benefits, no penalties. An individual is an individual and no joining of any group including a marriage can create new rights. Traditionally libertarians don't see marriage as a state issue. It is either:
> 1. A private contract between consenting adults in which case the state should leave it alone
> 
> or
> ...


If you have an argument for getting the State out of contract law I'd love to hear it, but I don't see how you can have your opinion without it. Contracts imply enforcement, which implies the power of law, which implies gov't involvement. That's why as a libertarian I feel it's a reasonable role for government. I'm a libertarian-conservative or conservative-libertarian, but I wouldn't throw the UCC out either! LOL

I guess your "no benefits" is a reasonable answer to this, but almost everyone else wants some benefit. So, that can't fly.

It's a difficult issue, but I think it could be solved if people would just be reasonable. I find little tolerance even for my view, which I think is rather generous for a non-gay-marriage voter. I wouldn't be surprised to find gay people think my view is bigoted and intolerant. I accept the will of the majority, right now that is with me, if it is against me I will still accept it.


----------



## AOI Photo (Dec 19, 2006)

ksinc said:


> If you have an argument for getting the State out of contract law I'd love to hear it, but I don't see how you can have your opinion without it. Contracts imply enforcement, which implies the power of law, which implies gov't involvement. That's why as a libertarian I feel it's a reasonable role for government. I'm a libertarian-conservative or conservative-libertarian, but I wouldn't throw the UCC out either! LOL


The only point for the government to get involved is in breach of contract. Therefore the government could be involved when someone breaks the contract, and therefore the other party seeks to dissolve it.

No one gets the government involved if I agree to paint your house on Thursday ( a contract) if I then refuse to do so after we agree you might get the government involved. As far as I am concerned the government has no right to interfere in any private contract between individuals that involves no non consenting third party.

Frankly if you and I contract to dual to the death in a private secure facility - where no one else can be accidentally injured - the government should not care.


----------



## AOI Photo (Dec 19, 2006)

AOI Photo said:


> Frankly if you and I contract to dual to the death in a private secure facility - where no one else can be accidentally injured - the government should not care.


Not that I'm suggesting such a thing..... at least not unless I get to load both weapons


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

AOI Photo said:


> Not that I'm suggesting such a thing..... at least not unless I get to load both weapons


LOL I do support the 'right to duel'. That always made sense to me 

However, I find many - less than average shots - do not support this right! LOL

If I was King for a Day I would declare one day of total amnesty. I think most people have a pretty good idea who needs to be thinned from the herd. Some of these people like this guy Couey in Florida (child molestor/murderer) just need to go away.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

AOI Photo said:


> The only point for the government to get involved is in breach of contract. Therefore the government could be involved when someone breaks the contract, and therefore the other party seeks to dissolve it.
> 
> No one gets the government involved if I agree to paint your house on Thursday ( a contract) if I then refuse to do so after we agree you might get the government involved. As far as I am concerned the government has no right to interfere in any private contract between individuals that involves no non consenting third party.


Sure they do. Have you painted a house, lately? LOL In my State, FL, I think you can get in more trouble for carrying an unlicensed paint brush than a gun right now. After the hurricanes and all the scams they are really tough on contractors and licensing, bonding and insurance, etc..

I put up a fence on my own property last year. I had three separate inspections. The world has gone crazy. LOL

Most contracts require some kind of notification/involvement. Any kind of security interest (which a marriage would be) requires perfection and documents be filed with the government upon acceptance, not just when there is a breach.

I don't think you can have a contract without contract law and government. Even an implied and/or oral, private agreement is subject to contract law. It's a nice utopian idea, but as soon as there is a dispute ... the whole system goes to hell.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

Although Giuliani isn't pro-life, I can't imagine that he would nominate a judge who did not have a judicial approach that would lead them to think that Roe v. Wade was a horrible decision. Whether or not you agree with the outcome, you'd have to agree that it was a bad decision. I think Rudy's judicial nominees would be pretty level headed.

Also, Giuliani isn't my first pick. I like Romney, then Giuliani. If Newt could get elected, he'd be my candidate.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

*Good News for Rudy*

https://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=26680


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

JRR said:


> https://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=26680


That's an interesting poll. Thanks!


----------



## AOI Photo (Dec 19, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Sure they do. Have you painted a house, lately? LOL In my State, FL, I think you can get in more trouble for carrying an unlicensed paint brush than a gun right now. After the hurricanes and all the scams they are really tough on contractors and licensing, bonding and insurance, etc..


Insane. Being of a libertarian bent I feel that there should be no requirements of this sort at all.



ksinc said:


> Most contracts require some kind of notification/involvement. Any kind of security interest (which a marriage would be) requires perfection and documents be filed with the government upon acceptance, not just when there is a breach.


Which is also intollerable; however granting that this is required - although it should not be - the government should still not pass judgment as to whether anything should be allowed if all parties consent. If all involved parties consent, the government should not care what they consent to, only that the consent is given.[/quote]



ksinc said:


> I don't think you can have a contract without contract law and government. Even an implied and/or oral, private agreement is subject to contract law. It's a nice utopian idea, but as soon as there is a dispute ... the whole system goes to hell.


Most contract law is not only unnecessary but unethical. If all parties consent, the government should not care about anything else. Period. Paragraph. Page.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

AOI Photo said:


> Most contract law is not only unnecessary but unethical.


Wowser


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Here's an interesting discussion with one of your guys (Jonah Goldberg of the National Review Online) talking about McCain and what conservatives think about him.


----------



## AOI Photo (Dec 19, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Wowser


Comes down to my basic theory. The government has no place interceding in an agreement in which all parties consent.

The requirement should simply be that all involved parties consent. If that is true people should be able to agree on anything. To seek to limit that is fundamentally unethical.

That is, of course, my opinion and reasonable people can certainly disagree on this, as is true of most issues.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

AOI Photo said:


> Comes down to my basic theory. The government has no place interceding in an agreement in which all parties consent.
> 
> The requirement should simply be that all involved parties consent. If that is true people should be able to agree on anything. To seek to limit that is fundamentally unethical.
> 
> That is, of course, my opinion and reasonable people can certainly disagree on this, as is true of most issues.


Well, at least you HAVE an opinion. Most people just have some talking points / sound bites. My heart certainly wants to agree with you. I guess at some point practicality got to me! LOL

Do you also fly one of these? I only ask because we do at our house.


----------



## AOI Photo (Dec 19, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Well, at least you HAVE an opinion. Most people just have some talking points / sound bites. My heart certainly wants to agree with you. I guess at some point practicality got to me! LOL
> 
> Do you also fly one of these? I only ask because we do at our house.


No can't say as I do.

My eyes are going a little, what does it say at the top?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

AOI Photo said:


> No can't say as I do.
> 
> My eyes are going a little, what does it say at the top?


The Culpeper Minute Men

https://gen.culpepper.com/historical/flag.htm


----------

